Gay engagement party

[Corki]

Your posts show some serious misunderstanding of Church teaching.

Sure, nice to be concerned…but that doesn’t mean you can’t show emotional support.
And showing support by attending doesn’t necessarily mean one is agreeing or promoting a lifestyle that they themselves would not choose.

Showing support for the people involved is good and appropriate. Going to a party where the main focus is on celebrating a disordered union, is wrong. That is called in “church talk” affirming someone in their sin.

Ah. Well if it’s not considered marriage in God’s eyes…then I guess he is not really getting married! And if that’s the case, there should be no problem with attending the party!

The OP indicated the the young man and his father were Catholic. To attempt an invalid marriage is also a grave sin.

The poster is a friend of this family, too. But his/her discomfort at being at the party is stronger than if these friends needed his help. So be it.

It’s not about discomfort at all. It’s about choosing to follow God instead of the cultural currents of the day. Nowhere at all has the OP indicated that he is cutting the friend off, refusing help or support, or anyother turning away from the person. He/she is only choosing not to celebrate something that is seriously wrong.

I’m going to take a big guess and assume the two men who are getting married know very well what the Catholic church thinks about gay marriage and men and women having sex with their own gender–that one is not valid and the second is a sin.

That both acts are disordered and sinful.

And for arguments sake, I guess we can assume that these two men have sex together? (because if they don’t there is no sin involved, and no problem here. For all we know, they don’t have sex and are not sinning at all. The poster has not specified, but for discussion’s sake, I am just assuming they are…)

Again, you are mistaken. It is a sin for two people of the same sex to “marry” each other, even if there is no sex.

As I’ve seen repeated on this site hundreds of times…Jesus himself sat and ate with sinners.

And then he told them to repent and to reform their lives - to go and sin no more.

Do you try to change the belief system of every Jewish person you meet? If you have a Jewish friend and they invite you to their child’s batmitzvah, do you not attend because they believe and are taught that Jesus is only a Jewish prophet and not God? I sure hope not…

non sequitor A Jewish person is not sinning by following his faith. Nor is there anything in the Jewish faith and practices that is morally disordered.

 

[clem456]

Going to a party where the main focus is on celebrating a disordered union, is wrong. That is called in “church talk” affirming someone in their sin.

Can be wrong, not IS wrong. therre are many variables. The Catholic Church does NOT teach that attending is necessarily and universally wrong. If you disagree, come with authoritative teaching please, otherwise we are making it up as we go.

It’s not about discomfort at all. It’s about choosing to follow God instead of the cultural currents of the day. Nowhere at all has the OP indicated that he is cutting the friend off, refusing help or support, or anyother turning away from the person. He/she is only choosing not to celebrate something that is seriously wrong.

Cultural currents don’t run one way only. Our culture is not all permissiveness and indifferentism. Popular culture is, but not ALL culture is. Culture can also be rigid, judgemental and unforgiving. Depends on what culture you are talking about.

That both acts are disordered and sinful.
Again, you are mistaken. It is a sin for two people of the same sex to “marry” each other, even if there is no sex.

On that you are correct.

And then he told them to repent and to reform their lives - to go and sin no more.

But… (people conveniently forget this truth) he DID dine with them,in fact allowed them to touch him and he touched them, in fact the savior of the world allowed them to crucify him. A very difficult truth, but truth nonetheless.

 

[PatriceA]

Can be wrong, not IS wrong. therre are many variables. The Catholic Church does NOT teach that attending is necessarily and universally wrong. If you disagree, come with authoritative teaching please, otherwise we are making it up as we go.

Cultural currents don’t run one way only. Our culture is not all permissiveness and indifferentism. Popular culture is, but not ALL culture is. Culture can also be rigid, judgemental and unforgiving. Depends on what culture you are talking about.

On that you are correct.

But… (people conveniently forget this truth) he DID dine with them,in fact allowed them to touch him and he touched them, in fact the savior of the world allowed them to crucify him. A very difficult truth, but truth nonetheless.

Did you just glance at this part of the link, or are you completely ignoring it:

If we allow or participate in the sin of another, we share that sin and its consequences. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches,

1868 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;

—by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;

—by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;

—by protecting evil-doers (no. 1868, original emphasis).

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. ‘Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!’ (Lk. 17:1)

 

[clem456]

Your posts show some serious misunderstanding of Church teaching.

Showing support for the people involved is good and appropriate. Going to a party where the main focus is on celebrating a disordered union, is wrong. That is called in “church talk” affirming someone in their sin.

The OP indicated the the young man and his father were Catholic. To attempt an invalid marriage is also a grave sin.

It’s not about discomfort at all. It’s about choosing to follow God instead of the cultural currents of the day. Nowhere at all has the OP indicated that he is cutting the friend off, refusing help or support, or anyother turning away from the person. He/she is only choosing not to celebrate something that is seriously wrong.

That both acts are disordered and sinful.

Again, you are mistaken. It is a sin for two people of the same sex to “marry” each other, even if there is no sex.

And then he told them to repent and to reform their lives - to go and sin no more.

non sequitor A Jewish person is not sinning by following his faith. Nor is there anything in the Jewish faith and practices that is morally disordered.

Did you just glance at this part of the link, or are you completely ignoring it:

If we allow or participate in the sin of another, we share that sin and its consequences. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches,

1868 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;

—by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;

—by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;

—by protecting evil-doers (no. 1868, original emphasis).

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. ‘Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!’ (Lk. 17:1)

Yep I read the whooole thing to the end. Did you? I think you may be surprised at what the article actually teaches, all of the article. You may be picking out the parts that justify only YOUR pov. This part, in the conslusion, may be a challenge:

The Catholic Church does not teach whether we must or must not attend.

You posted the article…

 

[PatriceA]

Yep I read the whooole thing to the end. Did you? I think you may be surprised at what the article actually teaches, all of the article. You may be picking out the parts that justify only YOUR pov. This part, in the conslusion, may be a challenge:

The Catholic Church does not teach whether we must or must not attend.

You posted the article…

Of course I’ve read it, and put it into practice. Consulted my spiritual advisor and priest on similar situations and have heeded their advice. Have you talked to your priest about what you should do if you ever have to make a similar decision as the OP?

To me, the risk of causing scandal is too great of a risk that I would want to undertake in attending a party such as the one is the situation in this thread or any situation similar. To advise any Catholic that is trying to live out the teachings to the best of their abilities to just go ahead and attend a party such as this one without personal discernment and seeking the advice of their priest is very irresponsible. One could be causing a fellow Catholic to sin. I personally do not want that on my conscience. Is it an easy decision? No, but being Catholic isn’t suppose to be always easy.

 

[clem456]

Of course I’ve read it, and put it into practice. Consulted my spiritual advisor and priest on similar situations and have heeded their advice. Have you talked to your priest about what you should do if you ever have to make a similar decision as the OP?

To me, the risk of causing scandal is too great of a risk that I would want to undertake in attending a party such as the one is the situation in this thread or any situation similar. To advise any Catholic that is trying to live out the teachings to the best of their abilities to just go ahead and attend a party such as this one without personal discernment and seeking the advice of their priest is very irresponsible. One could be causing a fellow Catholic to sin. I personally do not want that on my conscience. Is it an easy decision? No, but being Catholic isn’t suppose to be always easy.

Ok fair enough.
The discernment and priest are an important part of this. I understand where you are coming from.
I have a set of built in ideas about what goes on at these celebrations as I have a gay sister. She knows where i’m at, and we love each other. What I object to, and this is not aimed at you personally,is some of the outright rigid and incorrect ideas you read here. We can’t make it up as we go.

 

[PatriceA]

Ok fair enough.
The discernment and priest are an important part of this. I understand where you are coming from.
I have a set of built in ideas about what goes on at these celebrations as I have a gay sister. She knows where i’m at, and we love each other. What I object to, and this is not aimed at you personally,is some of the outright rigid and incorrect ideas you read here. We can’t make it up as we go.

I can imagine you love your sister very much. I can imagine the parties you’ve attended with her were very nice and enjoyable and not debaucheries like maybe some people imagine. If one was to accidently just walk by the party room and didn’t even know it was for a gay couple, one probably couldn’t tell the difference between that and any other party, correct? And I certainly don’t advocate cutting off all ties with friends that sin, gay or not. I would attend a birthday party of a gay friend, or if they threw a 4th of July party or barbecue or something. I just couldn’t in good conscience attend their engagement party, or wedding, or similar.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Patrice

**I would attend a birthday party of a gay friend, or if they threw a 4th of July party or barbecue or something. I just couldn’t in good conscience attend their engagement party, or wedding, or similar. **

Good distinction!

 

[Corki]

Can be wrong, not IS wrong. therre are many variables. The Catholic Church does NOT teach that attending is necessarily and universally wrong. If you disagree, come with authoritative teaching please, otherwise we are making it up as we go.

Patrice already posted you the relevant teaching. To affirm somoen in their sin is immoral. Always. To celebrate is to “To observe (a day or event) with ceremonies of respect, festivity, or rejoicing.” If you celebrate something immoral you are, at worst, approving of it, at best, tolerating it - both of which affirm it.

Cultural currents don’t run one way only. Our culture is not all permissiveness and indifferentism. Popular culture is, but not ALL culture is. Culture can also be rigid, judgemental and unforgiving. Depends on what culture you are talking about.

I am talking about the current culture that tries to say that we must all be tolerant of all kinds of lifestyles, even those that run counter to morality.

But… (people conveniently forget this truth) he DID dine with them,in fact allowed them to touch him and he touched them, in fact the savior of the world allowed them to crucify him. A very difficult truth, but truth nonetheless.

And no one here is saying differently. Go. Have dinner with your friend, invite him out for drinks, celebrate his birthday – all good. Joining him in celebrating a sinful lifestyle - not good and you won’t find any example of Jesus or the Apostles doing that either.

 

[Corki]

Yep I read the whooole thing to the end. Did you? I think you may be surprised at what the article actually teaches, all of the article. You may be picking out the parts that justify only YOUR pov. This part, in the conslusion, may be a challenge:

The Catholic Church does not teach whether we must or must not attend.

You posted the article…

I’m not sure why you quoted me and then asked this question. I posted no article.

 

[clem456]

Patrice already posted you the relevant teaching. To affirm somoen in their sin is immoral. Always. To celebrate is to “To observe (a day or event) with ceremonies of respect, festivity, or rejoicing.” If you celebrate something immoral you are, at worst, approving of it, at best, tolerating it - both of which affirm it.

I am talking about the current culture that tries to say that we must all be tolerant of all kinds of lifestyles, even those that run counter to morality.

And no one here is saying differently. Go. Have dinner with your friend, invite him out for drinks, celebrate his birthday – all good. Joining him in celebrating a sinful lifestyle - not good and you won’t find any example of Jesus or the Apostles doing that either.

You would apply the letter of the law to all situations in the way YOU wish. That is not Catholic teaching. The Church does not have a position on the attendance at a celebration or party or family gathering of this type. What more can be said really? More damage is done to the Catholic Chruch by poorly catechised and uncharitable Catholics than by enemies of the Church, people who know some basic stuff and use it to justify YOUR OWN OPINION.
Again, if you think there is a specific church position on this matter, post it. Otherwise, who is causing scandal. here???
Patricia’s article gives a well rounded summary of what the dilemna is on this issue. Maybe these two pararaphs from that article will help you:

This illustrates the dilmma very well:

There is a real concern that if a person refuses to attend the wedding, a rift in friendship could occur. This division could hinder any witness to the truth, and this concern is especially serious if the wedding involves a close friend or family member. This concern alone must not hinder our witness (cf. Lk. 12:51-53), but it can guide our actions as we fulfill our obligation to bring others to Christ. It could be that not attending would destroy any possible chance to witness the truth to the persons involved, especially if no reason is given for not attending. It could also be that not attending, and giving reasons for the absence, will help the couple choose the way of Christ. If a Catholic chooses to attend, he will want to ensure that no one considers his presence to be an affirmation of the sin.

the conslusion is a good summation

Conclusion

Anyone invited to the wedding of a couple whose marriage does not promote the truth should prayerfully consider his actions. Using the teachings explained in the Catechism, he should ask ourselves, “How can I avoid participating in their sin, yet encourage their salvation? How can I avoid scandal, yet encourage the salvation of others?” Anyone in this situation should discuss the matter with a spiritual director or in the confessional before making the decision. Whatever one’s decision may be, a Catholic should strive to give a clear and charitable witness to the faith. **The Catholic Church does not teach whether we must or must not attend. **Christ does say we must witness to the truth in a charitable manner. If loved ones or friends go through with the wedding, a Catholic should look for opportunities to maintain contact and witness to the truth. Above all, our decisions and actions must promote the salvation of souls. In fostering the salvation of souls, the Two Great Commandments are fulfilled.

 

[Corki]

You would apply the letter of the law to all situations in the way YOU wish. That is not Catholic teaching. The Church does not have a position on the attendance at a celebration or party or family gathering of this type. .

I am no longer able to follow the logic in your rant.

The Church says one must not affirm another in sin. That’s in the Catechism. If you can find a way to attend a same-sex engagement party that does not involve celebrating for/with the couple, that’s between you and your confessor but has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. The OP is talking about a family friend. You keep posting about a discussion exercise that invovles the “wedding” of a family member. That’s a very different scenario.

What more can be said really? More damage is done to the Catholic Chruch by poorly catechised and uncharitable Catholics than by enemies of the Church, people who know some basic stuff and use it to justify YOUR OWN OPINION.

Be careful of who you are calling poorly catechized. Some of the people who disagreed with you in this thread are very well educated in the faith.

I have posted nothing that is opinion, let alone my opinion.

Again, if you think there is a specific church position on this matter, post it. Otherwise, who is causing scandal. here???

CCC 1868 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;

—by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;

—by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;

—by protecting evil-doers

How exactly does posting Church teaching give scandal?

Patricia’s article gives a well rounded summary of what the dilemna is on this issue. Maybe these two pararaphs from that article will help you:

This illustrates the dilmma very well:

It could also be that not attending, and giving reasons for the absence, will help the couple choose the way of Christ. If a Catholic chooses to attend, he will want to ensure that no one considers his presence to be an affirmation of the sin.

That’s very hard to do with an engagement celebration.

Above all, our decisions and actions must promote the salvation of souls. In fostering the salvation of souls, the Two Great Commandments are fulfilled

This is what we have been saying all along.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Show us in the authoritative teaching of the magisterium,

The topic of the thread relates to the concept of Cooperation in Evil, by ‘standing and witnessing’ (thus approving), which is precisely what is involved in formal events which feature licit marriage or illicit or fabricated “marriage.” And an engagement party is part of the chain of social approval sought for such pairings. The concept of cooperation in general is discussed here, authoritatively, and with references.

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/COOPRTN.htm

or especially in the life of Jesus, that it is sinful to be at a gathering like this. …So you disagree with Jesus’ actions in the gospels? Those are very specific events. I assume you take the Gospels as part of revelation expressed by the Catholic Church.

No faithful Jew, of which Jesus was one during his earthly ministry, would have approved of homosexual behavior of any kind, and thus would never have Stood & Witnessed (celebrated) such a pairing. The reason that you do not read of Jesus discussing this behavior specifically is that the Gospels were News, as in New. Had he created a new Jewish Code of Law, that would have been The News, because that would have been a radical repudiation of Jewish Law, which is not what Jesus proclaimed, but quite the opposite. The purpose of the Gospels was to highlight Jesus’ radical message of God’s definitive saving grace for those who repent of their sins and seek God’s mercy for those sins. What was recorded and repeated was the New Covenant, which did not abolish Jewish Law, but which deepened and expanded the requirements of that Law to include the moral regulations within it (sexual and non-sexual) and to define covenant explicitly as God’s promise of fidelity based on personal conversion, instead of a basis of external ritual.

Mt 5:17

 

[clem456]

The topic of the thread relates to the concept of Cooperation in Evil, by ‘standing and witnessing’ (thus approving), which is precisely what is involved in formal events which feature licit marriage or illicit or fabricated “marriage.” And an engagement party is part of the chain of social approval sought for such pairings. The concept of cooperation in general is discussed here, authoritatively, and with references.

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/COOPRTN.htm

No faithful Jew, of which Jesus was one during his earthly ministry, would have approved of homosexual behavior of any kind, and thus would never have Stood & Witnessed (celebrated) such a pairing. The reason that you do not read of Jesus discussing this behavior specifically is that the Gospels were News, as in New. Had he created a new Jewish Code of Law, that would have been The News, because that would have been a radical repudiation of Jewish Law, which is not what Jesus proclaimed, but quite the opposite. The purpose of the Gospels was to highlight Jesus’ radical message of God’s definitive saving grace for those who repent of their sins and seek God’s mercy for those sins. What was recorded and repeated was the New Covenant, which did not abolish Jewish Law, but which deepened and expanded the requirements of that Law to include the moral regulations within it (sexual and non-sexual) and to define covenant explicitly as God’s promise of fidelity based on personal conversion, instead of a basis of external ritual.

Mt 5:17

OP wants to know if it’s wrong. The only reasonable and obedient answer is… maybe, depends. The link you provide rehashes some of the material we’ve already discussed.

No faithful Jew would approve etc…that’s not the issue. The catechism has been quoted several times in this thread on the boundaries of sin…everyone gets it that homosexuality is a sin and that we can be accessories. I am frankly astonished at your reading of the Gospel. Jesus was with sinners, he was not afraid of them. He ministered to them, touched them and healed them. He did not worry about what those with Pharisaic attitudes would be muttering about his ministry. Do you think he did this from some sort cloud in the sky? Some golden throne in a white robe with rubber gloves on? What you say is true, but does not begin to be the whole truth of the Church.

 

[Corki]

OP wants to know if it’s wrong. The only reasonable and obedient answer is… maybe, depends. The link you provide rehashes some of the material we’ve already discussed.

No. The OP stated that he already **knew **it would be wrong for him to attend. He has given us no reason to doubt that, for him, it would be wrong. There is no “it depends”. He just wanted some suggestions for discussing the matter with his father.

 

[PatriceA]

No. The OP stated that he already **knew **it would be wrong for him to attend. He has given us no reason to doubt that, for him, it would be wrong. There is no “it depends”. He just wanted some suggestions for discussing the matter with his father.

Exactly. And I do hope the OP has found enough advice in this thread to give their father much to think and discern about attending this party.

 

[clem456]

No. The OP stated that he already **knew **it would be wrong for him to attend. He has given us no reason to doubt that, for him, it would be wrong. There is no “it depends”. He just wanted some suggestions for discussing the matter with his father.

Fair enough. -In that case- his knowlege of Church teaching, conscience, discernment and knowlege of the situation should be obeyed. And I will apologize if I co-opted the OP’s original question into a broader question.
God bless. I am going to sign off on this before I become uncharitable with someone…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Clem

**I am frankly astonished at your reading of the Gospel. Jesus was with sinners, he was not afraid of them. He ministered to them, touched them and healed them. He did not worry about what those with Pharisaic attitudes would be muttering about his ministry. Do you think he did this from some sort cloud in the sky? Some golden throne in a white robe with rubber gloves on? What you say is true, but does not begin to be the whole truth of the Church. **

I am frankly astonished at your reading of the Gospels. Do you really believe Jesus would have joined a party to celebrate a marriage between two men? Whew!

 

[clem456]

Clem

**I am frankly astonished at your reading of the Gospel. Jesus was with sinners, he was not afraid of them. He ministered to them, touched them and healed them. He did not worry about what those with Pharisaic attitudes would be muttering about his ministry. Do you think he did this from some sort cloud in the sky? Some golden throne in a white robe with rubber gloves on? What you say is true, but does not begin to be the whole truth of the Church. **

I am frankly astonished at your reading of the Gospels. Do you really believe Jesus would have joined a party to celebrate a marriage between two men? Whew!

Well actually yes.,To celebrate their sin, no. Depending on the circumstances Jesus would be where he was needed.

But you know that, don’t you. But go ahead, take it out of context. Do as you wish.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

clem
**
Well actually yes.,To celebrate their sin, no. Depending on the circumstances Jesus would be where he was needed.**

For them he would be where he was needed … not at the party … in the confessional booth.