Doubting and marrying

[Rau]

I just don’t see how baking a cake for any event is directly participating in said event. For instance: Evelyn’s Bakery baked my cake for my bridal shower. She delivered the cake before I was even there, only the ladies who were throwing the shower were there. Evelyn didn’t participate in my shower, she sold a cake. And when people said, “This is the best strawberry cake I have ever had.” My bridesmaid who ordered it said, “Evelyn did it. I always get this cake for my birthday.” Evelyn’s name only came up once.
Girl who baked my cake for my wedding. She’s a friend of my stepsister. I asked her to bake me a cake. She needed to know how many guests, what flavor, and send a picture for the design. She did come to set it up. Wedding started at 11 and her tail was there at 9:30. My bridesmaids weren’t due until 10. I ran to the pavilion with my hair pinned up and half my makeup on to give her the money. She didn’t participate in the festivities. Directly participating in an event would mean that you would kinda have to stay around for the event to happen.
That would be like dress shop asking you what type of wedding you are having so they will know if they could sell a dress to you. “We don’t want to participate in your wedding by selling you this dress.” Wait, what? You aren’t on my guest list.
Or Macy’s asking you what you are going to be doing with the formal dress you bought. “Don’t want to participate in your debauchery at your Killarney Rose Ball”
Or Victoria’s Secret asking to see your marriage certificate before you buy lingerie. “Don’t want to participate in your fornication.”
Kinda silly, really.

Consider the video photographer who spends some hours with the bridal party, capturing the key, emotional moments on tape, poring over the tape for hours to edit it and create the lasting beautiful video memento. How is this not participating?

 

[Rau]

Something can be against nature, but not actually committed by the person. Actions in war for example. We all eat sweets and some smoke, even though it hurts the temple of God. I don’t even want to hear the nonsense excuses that they “only do a little damage”. Its all objective sin, but we are weak and have psychological needs. We need our nice stuff to even though someone in the world will DIE from hunger because we wouldn’t sell our furniture and send the money to him. Likewise, a homosexual could just be weak, needy, and psychologically confused.

It is a mortal sin (objectively ) to rashly judge another as if you knew he was wicked and yet had no proof

Are you saying gay sex is sinful, but there is no basis to assume those seeking a gay marriage intend to have sex?

 

[Corki]

Marriage is, by its nature, a sexual Union. Does that not meet you criteria for “subjectively sinning”?

Even without the sexual component, simulating a marriage is gravely immoral. Entering into a same-sex “marriage” is objectively wrong - nothing subjective about it.

 

[Rau]

Even without the sexual component, simulating a marriage is gravely immoral. Entering into a same-sex “marriage” is objectively wrong - nothing subjective about it.

yes, though it’s not exactly crystal clear what simulating a marriage means if it is not sexual. But I guess we understand that sharing a house is one thing and “playing house” is another.

Thinkandmull’s need for “photographic evidence” (so to speak) before drawing the conclusion about sexual intent should also be tested. I await his thoughts.

 

[thinkandmull]

I didn’t say they probably weren’t having sex. I was saying we can’t judge their conscience. Protestants are objectively wrong in what they say about Mary, but they may not be sinning

 

[thinkandmull]

What is “subjectively” sinning? We call things like murder, child abuse, theft, etc sins. The people who commit them are sinning. It’s possible to judge actions without judging the personal culpability of the people involved.

But that’s not why it’s legitimate to refuse service to a gay wedding. We should consider doing so not because of the personal sin of the people involved, but because the event itself is objectively disordered. A gay marriage publicly contradicts what marriage actually is. It sounds odd to modern ears to use the word “mockery” because many homosexuals attempting marriage are sincerely in love and not trying to make a statement, but the fact remains that gay marriage does mock real marriage. It’s an imitation of it, and it causes people to become confused about what marriage is. A baker (or wedding planning, florist, etc) should be able to refuse to participate in the gay wedding not because the participants are gay but because the event itself violates natural law and creates scandal.

I think Christian and Catholics are free to disagree on whether we should not be involved with gay weddings. If my son leaves the Church and wants me to go to his Hindu wedding, would it be a sin? I think we are free to have our own opinions on this.

 

[Rau]

I didn’t say they probably weren’t having sex. I was saying we can’t judge their conscience. Protestants are objectively wrong in what they say about Mary, but they may not be sinning

You made no mention of conscience.

We are/were talking about what we can know, ie. what scts are objectively good or not, not what we can’t know, a person’s conscience and fate before God.

 

[thinkandmull]

The issue is really whether we should just be nice/kind and sell the cakes to the gay couple and leave their conscience to God. Where does this idea some: “you cannot participate in objective wrong in any way”.

 

[Rau]

The issue is really whether we should just be nice/kind and sell the cakes to the gay couple and leave their conscience to God. Where does this idea some: “you cannot participate in objective wrong in any way”.

You’ve misquoted. Since you can’t know a man’s conscience, what benchmark can you use but Church teaching?

 

[Corki]

The issue is really whether we should just be nice/kind and sell the cakes to the gay couple and leave their conscience to God. Where does this idea some: “you cannot participate in objective wrong in any way”.

It comes from the Catechism which, in turn, is summarizing the constant teaching of the Church. I quoted it for you in post #16.

 

[thinkandmull]

It comes from the Catechism which, in turn, is summarizing the constant teaching of the Church. I quoted it for you in post #16.

All that says is that “Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;”

If I believe my son has left the Church in good faith because of certain arguments against the Church people put in his head, can I not go to his wedding to a non-Catholic?

 

[Corki]

All that says is that “Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;”

If I believe my son has left the Church in good faith because of certain arguments against the Church people put in his head, can I not go to his wedding to a non-Catholic?

**That’s not “all” it says. ** The very next sentence is “Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:”

It would be wrong to cooperate in a sinful act such as your son’s attempted marriage. By cooperating, you incur some responsibility for his sin. Whether that rises to the level of sin on your part is between you and your confessor.

 

[thinkandmull]

It defined sin as “personal” and it is that alone that we are not to participate in. John Paul II prayed with pagans

 

[Rau]

It defined sin as “personal” and it is that alone that we are not to participate in. John Paul II prayed with pagans

So? Sin is personal because one sins in the heart. But you can get help to do it. Driving the getaway car for example. If you support a sin, encourage it, endorse it, embrace it - you’ve done what you should not. You’ve also interfered with the possibility of repentance, of redemption.

 

[thinkandmull]

There is a difference between aiding sin and aiding someone who more likely is innocently doing some that is objectively wrong. I’ve seen nothing in Church teaching that forbids Catholics from selling a cake to a gay wedding

 

[Rau]

There is a difference between aiding sin and aiding someone who more likely is innocently doing some that is objectively wrong. I’ve seen nothing in Church teaching that forbids Catholics from selling a cake to a gay wedding

There is nothing in catholic teaching about selling bomb making instructions either. But contributing to, endorsing or supporting another’s wrong act, is covered. Fraternal correction is covered. Whether baking cakes, decorating wedding cakes with “Adam and Steve Forever”, making beautiful commemorative videos of the wedding of Adam and Steve, crosses that line is for each to assess.

 

[thinkandmull]

“contributing to, endorsing or supporting another’s wrong act”

Objective or subjective wrong?

"You win more flees with honey than with vinegar"

 

[Rau]

“contributing to, endorsing or supporting another’s wrong act”

Objective or subjective wrong?

"You win more flees with honey than with vinegar"

Objective. How else is fraternal correction possible?

Both honey and vinegar are to be commended.

 

[slh3016]

At the onset of this thread, I was firmly in the category that it is the baker’s right to refuse to make the case because it violated his/her conscience.

Now, my mind is whirling with scenarios that seem to take on various shades of gray.

So, while the Church says it’s okay to refuse to make the cake on the part of the baker, is there a clear teaching on whether the baker is sinning, either venial or grave, by actually making the cake with a “live and let live” attitude?

I ask because I believe this scenario can play out into other areas of industry as well. For example, are people who provide services (i.e., interior decorators, carpenters, landscapers, etc.) committing sin by providing services to homosexual couples or even co-habitating couples because it could be considered “endorsing the sin by helping them with their home”?

My husband falls into the lawn care category and once, he found out that one of his customers was lesbian and co-habitating. He continued to cut their lawn. Was that sinning? Is that promoting the sin?

I have a hard time believe that he was sinning in that situation, so now that I look at the baker, I have a hard time believing they would either.

On the flip side of that, though, I do think it would have been my husband’s right to have discontinued service if he’d wished and thus do not feel like the baker should be compelled to bake the cake. Very confusing…

 

[thinkandmull]

The Church doesn’t teach anything on this issue when it comes down to people who you don’t know.

I remember when I was scrupulous as a young teen, I use to ask all sorts of questions to numerous priests and get many conflicting answers. Rome doesn’t like to define often. Its sad