Cohabiting Cousin Invite to "House Warming"

[Ral91]

I gave the same answer. I too would decline the house-warming, yet would latter be willing to visit. A house-warming is integral to living together (without marriage, in this case). Likewise, there are many weddings I would not attend. Yet when the visit is not a celebration of something I do not agree with, I do not believe in shunning. If I am to be looked down on eating with sinners and tax collectors, that is okay. No servant is better than their master.

It is one thing to decline a housewarming because they are not married- that can be done in a respectful way. But declining to go to a wedding because you think it is invalid is another- my point being that if you told someone you were not attending their wedding because you saw it as invalid then how do you know they would even invite you to their house after? It might not be a case of shunning them but they might chose to avoid you because of the fact that others have made a judgement about the validity of their marriage.

 

[pnewton]

It is one thing to decline a housewarming because they are not married- that can be done in a respectful way. But declining to go to a wedding because you think it is invalid is another- my point being that if you told someone you were not attending their wedding because you saw it as invalid then how do you know they would even invite you to their house after? It might not be a case of shunning them but they might chose to avoid you because of the fact that others have made a judgement about the validity of their marriage.

One can only do as one sees what is right. They cannot answer for persecution that one receives. In fact, we are promised persecution. Still, it is best not to ask for persecution. One can always decline without giving any reason, or simply not show up.

 

[thewanderer]

Wow this just keeps getting better and better… Ok so basically they’re being held accountable of the sins someone else hasn’t even committed yet. Again, who are they being selfish to? Another couple that is considering living together? As if they don’t have their own free will and a mind that can help them make their own judgments?

And “might” and “likely” still mean the same thing. It means something HAS NOT HAPPENED YET. So now we’re sinning even if we haven’t done anything? And how is everyone so sure that they’re GOING to sin. I think that’s making a judgment that you have no proof of whatsoever (provided the couple hasn’t said they HAVE done something). I think the “scandal” is just a bunch of people making judgments by gossiping about stuff they have no certainty about.

The fact that these are all things that haven’t happened yet and only might happen is what makes this something that is ok if you have a justifiable reason. Its all about being prudent and it has nothing to do with other people being judgmental and gossipy. That is the secular meaning of scandal and not at all what the Church means by it. I think you are missing this important distinction, its why I tried to avoid using the word scandal the first time around… too many people associate it with judgmental gossips, which is not at all what I meant by it.

Look at it this way. If you had an alcoholic friend, who you knew was struggling to quite but having a hard time, and you invited him over to your house, would you then pull out the alcohol and pour yourself a drink right in front of him, even offer it to him? Of course not. But why not? Afterall, he hasn’t actually given in to drink alcohol yet, you drinking and offering him a drink isn’t forcing him to give in, and sure, while he might give in, its something that hasn’t happened yet, he has his own free will, so you shouldn’t worry about it at all, right? According to your above reasoning there would be absolutely nothing wrong with drinking in front of him and offering him a drink. The reason being you claimed that how your actions influence other’s actions doesn’t matter because you are not forcing another person to act. So, apply that here and it is clear that there should be nothing wrong with offering your struggling alcoholic friend a drink. Do you see how this thinking is problematic?

 

[thewanderer]

That’s right so if they don’t receive a dispensation the marriage is not valid.

As what happened with my wifes cousin he flatly refused to get one, therefore the marriage was not valid.

End of story.

I think we’re speaking past each other. Of course it is invalid if a catholic marries outside the Church without a dispensation. I never questioned that. I was just trying to correct the mistaken idea that a marriage between two protestants, or atheists could never be valid, or that a marriage between a catholic and non-catholic in a non-catholic setting would be invalid even if they got the correct dispensations.

 

[BioNerd]

The fact that these are all things that haven’t happened yet and only might happen is what makes this something that is ok if you have a justifiable reason. Its all about being prudent and it has nothing to do with other people being judgmental and gossipy. That is the secular meaning of scandal and not at all what the Church means by it. I think you are missing this important distinction, its why I tried to avoid using the word scandal the first time around… too many people associate it with judgmental gossips, which is not at all what I meant by it.

Look at it this way. If you had an alcoholic friend, who you knew was struggling to quite but having a hard time, and you invited him over to your house, would you then pull out the alcohol and pour yourself a drink right in front of him, even offer it to him? Of course not. But why not? Afterall, he hasn’t actually given in to drink alcohol yet, you drinking and offering him a drink isn’t forcing him to give in, and sure, while he might give in, its something that hasn’t happened yet, he has his own free will, so you shouldn’t worry about it at all, right? According to your above reasoning there would be absolutely nothing wrong with drinking in front of him and offering him a drink. The reason being you claimed that how your actions influence other’s actions doesn’t matter because you are not forcing another person to act. So, apply that here and it is clear that there should be nothing wrong with offering your struggling alcoholic friend a drink. Do you see how this thinking is problematic?

Well then please, explain the “Church’s definition” of scandal is because I’m not really seeing it…

Why do people here love comparing non-addictive things to addictive things? This isn’t like quitting smoking or drinking, to you save you the bio lesson, there’s actuall chemicals that mess with nerve receptors and axons that actually make these things a PHYSICAL challenge. People argue that this is a “moral” matter. I’d compare to it to going on a diet. If I have the will power to walk by a McDonals without buying something, then so does the next person. And what if there intention is not to purposefully “offer them the drink” they’re having? If their intention is not to purposefully lead people to do what they are doing why are being held accountable as if they were? I’m not arguing that the person should attend the housewarming, obviously anyone has the right to decline, even if they simply just don’t feel like going.

As for the alcohol story, I agree it would be cruel to invite an alcoholic over and then just pop out some Bacardi in front him, but again you can’t compare it to this because the couple has specifically stated “this is a housewarming party because we’re now living together”. In your scenario that’s basically putting forth a warning that there WILL be alcohol, and if someone has a problem with that, they’re free to not attend. Again, I’m not seeing why they would be responsible for someone else’s sin. Does this mean if I wear a skirt that’s a little above the knee because I think it looks pretty on me, and Johnny Bob finds this a turn on and goes off to have some “alone time” with himself, I’M the one that’s also at fault because HE couldn’t control his hormones?

I’m honestly not trying to debate you on this, I really would like to see why this would be morally wrong but I’m just not seeing it. I PERSONALLY disagree with living together before marriage but not because of moral or religious reason, just because of financial, legal, and security reasons. But again, if another couple decides that that’s what’s right for them (and I’m assuming “right” is for them to decide) I don’t see the harm they’re doing to me or anyone else.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I PERSONALLY disagree with living together before marriage but not because of moral or religious reason, just because of financial, legal, and security reasons. But again, if another couple decides that that’s what’s right for them (and I’m assuming “right” is for them to decide) I don’t see the harm they’re doing to me or anyone else.

I guess this is where the Catholic faith is so obviously different from Protestantism. (I’m guessing you are a protestant). See, we believe in objective morality, as it has been defined by God. Whether you personally think something is right, that does not necessarily make it right to God. The Catholic church is serious about this and it does not have the authority to change the rules about morality in order to fit with secular trends. What God thinks is what matters, not what you or I think. And God has made Himself quite clear about sexual morality, and even advanced mental gymnastics can’t twist that and call it optional. We can relate this to your last sentence in the paragraph above when you talk about harm. When we sin we offend God and we harm ourselves. That is a double injury.

 

[PatriceA]

I definitely see where you are coming from. I wouldn’t have a problem going to their house for a Fourth of July Party or a Birthday Party or even just getting together for the heck of it, what puts this over the top for me is that it is specifically celebrating the sin of living together before they are married. I’m inclined to not attending the invalid wedding and b/c they won’t really be married I’d have to not let them sleep over at my house in the same room or something like that, but just visiting them isn’t celebrating the sin or enabling them in their sin (as giving them the same room would). Just hanging out or eating with them would be okay, everyone I hang out with is sinner after all, but specifically celebrating the sin is another matter all together.

Take it a step further, do you go to people’s houses that are co-habitating, even if its not a “house warming” party? Because that’s what you will be doing if you go to picnics and holiday celebrations at this couple’s house. Since it will be an invalid marriage, they will still be just a co-habitating couple after the wedding.

If you really want to draw attention to yourself and create drama, by all means avoid the “house warming party” and the wedding and then go over to their house after they are invalidly married… Don’t quite get your line of thinking that just because there was a “wedding” ceremony, its ok then to associate with them at their house, because nothing really will have changed, other than you created a situation that doesn’t really need to be created if that’s the way you are thinking.

I associate with sinners on a daily basis, but I invite people that are co-habitating, in SSA relationships, etc., to my house OR to a neutral location. I don’t shun them, but I don’t also go over to their house. I have declined invalid wedding invites, I’ve also attended some. That’s a situation that I use the advice of my priest and prayerfully discern before making the decision.

 

[PietroPaolo]

Take it a step further, do you go to people’s houses that are co-habitating, even if its not a “house warming” party? Because that’s what you will be doing if you go to picnics and holiday celebrations at this couple’s house. Since it will be an invalid marriage, they will still be just a co-habitating couple after the wedding.

If you really want to draw attention to yourself and create drama, by all means avoid the “house warming party” and the wedding and then go over to their house after they are invalidly married… Don’t quite get your line of thinking that just because there was a “wedding” ceremony, its ok then to associate with them at their house, because nothing really will have changed, other than you created a situation that doesn’t really need to be created if that’s the way you are thinking.

I associate with sinners on a daily basis, but I invite people that are co-habitating, in SSA relationships, etc., to my house OR to a neutral location. I don’t shun them, but I don’t also go over to their house. I have declined invalid wedding invites, I’ve also attended some. That’s a situation that I use the advice of my priest and prayerfully discern before making the decision.

I appreciate your time in responding, but we’ve already extensively covered this ground several times on this thread. Briefly, you’re failing to make a distinction between shunning someone (which would include not speaking to or seeing them again) and simply refusing to take part in a celebration of sin. Going to their house to celebrate a birthday is not a problem b/c the party isn’t celebrating something sinful, even though my cousin is (like everyone else) a sinner. Going to a party specifically being thrown to celebrate their cohabitation is entirely different - it is a party celebrating sin. It’s an important distinction and, if you are interested, you can read more on the posts above.

Thanks again for offering your thoughts!

 

[thewanderer]

Well then please, explain the “Church’s definition” of scandal is because I’m not really seeing it…

Why do people here love comparing non-addictive things to addictive things? This isn’t like quitting smoking or drinking, to you save you the bio lesson, there’s actuall chemicals that mess with nerve receptors and axons that actually make these things a PHYSICAL challenge. People argue that this is a “moral” matter. I’d compare to it to going on a diet. If I have the will power to walk by a McDonals without buying something, then so does the next person. And what if there intention is not to purposefully “offer them the drink” they’re having? If their intention is not to purposefully lead people to do what they are doing why are being held accountable as if they were? I’m not arguing that the person should attend the housewarming, obviously anyone has the right to decline, even if they simply just don’t feel like going.

As for the alcohol story, I agree it would be cruel to invite an alcoholic over and then just pop out some Bacardi in front him, but again you can’t compare it to this because the couple has specifically stated “this is a housewarming party because we’re now living together”. In your scenario that’s basically putting forth a warning that there WILL be alcohol, and if someone has a problem with that, they’re free to not attend. Again, I’m not seeing why they would be responsible for someone else’s sin. Does this mean if I wear a skirt that’s a little above the knee because I think it looks pretty on me, and Johnny Bob finds this a turn on and goes off to have some “alone time” with himself, I’M the one that’s also at fault because HE couldn’t control his hormones?

I’m honestly not trying to debate you on this, I really would like to see why this would be morally wrong but I’m just not seeing it. I PERSONALLY disagree with living together before marriage but not because of moral or religious reason, just because of financial, legal, and security reasons. But again, if another couple decides that that’s what’s right for them (and I’m assuming “right” is for them to decide) I don’t see the harm they’re doing to me or anyone else.

The harm is in forming a culture where such a scenario is accepted as normal. When an action is generally and culturally accepted as normal it makes it easier for people to do it. So the fact is that when people live together before marriage they are going to help encourage the normalization of such a situation in other people’s minds. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not about to go around judging such people and there are situations which make living together the best solution (of course living chastely and doing your best to make sure others understand you are living chastely). I have even advised someone on here to move his girlfriend into his house if he couldn’t find anywhere else for her because of the toxic and abusive situation she was living in. But you do have to be aware and careful of how your actions will effect others. If a particular action is likely to help lead others into mortal sin, and you don’t have a good reason to perform said action then it is very uncharitable to perform it as you are helping to endanger other people for no good reason. Obviously, if they fall, the sin is theirs, not yours but you will have been guilty of selfishness and being uncharitable towards them.

As for the example of alcohol… I think you misunderstood what part I was comparing. I was noting that having alcohol present and offering it to the alcoholic is performing an action which will make it easier for the alcoholic to give in and have a drink. This is compared to giving a visible example of living together before marriage which will make it easier for others to live together unchastely before marriage. What is uncertain in both cases is whether or not the alcoholic will give in and whether or not others will give in and live together unchastely. In both cases there is an action which will make it easier for someone else to do something they shouldn’t. Now, its either true that we should care about how our actions might influence others or we shouldn’t. If we should care about it then we should care about the way living together before marriage might influence others to do the same, if we have no need to care about the way our actions influence others then there is no reason to not offer an alcoholic a drink. Does that make more sense?