Gay friend is getting married

[Rau]

Like I said, it’s glaringly obvious to the most casual observer that most of these relationships aren’t going to be between platonic friends, even though some platonic friends might take advantage of the law.

I guessed that would be the case. However, should the state merely provide an administrative & legal process for such arrangements, it would be hard to oppose the State in doing so.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Right - And maybe if the goal is “don’t force the Church into having to perform gay marriages or get hit with a discrimination lawsuit” then the civil partnerships alternative looks like, as I said, the lesser of the two evils.

And maybe if you’re big into LGBTQ+ ministry and support, this is a position you can take without directly contradicting the teaching of the Church and getting called on the carpet by the Vatican.

Lots of maybe if’s.

I’m out.

OP - good luck with whatever you decide to do. I agree it’s a tough situation to be in.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

You’re saying that really, this is a British thing? Cousins are entering “civil partnerships” with each other to benefit from British inheritance laws?

Probably not in huge numbers, but it’s legally entirely possible. Inheritance tax is quite a pressing concern for a lot of people in Britain, and they are both keen to avoid it at all costs and rather disgruntled that civil partnerships create a whole new category of people who are exempt from it. The sort of scenario in which this cropped up was something like two elderly, unmarried siblings who still live together in the family home. What they would fear would be that one of them would die, the other would inherit their share of the family home, and would then be faced with an onerous tax bill. When civil partnerships came in, one heard quite of lot of complaints along the lines of, “If gays and lesbians can avoid inheritance tax, I should be able to have a civil partnership with my sister so we don’t have to pay inheritance tax either.”

And again, circling back to the point… Given your knowledge of Catholic teaching about chastity, do you really not see why (perhaps one Archbishop aside) there’s such a huge caution against celibates living in close quarters with someone they’re sexually attracted to?

Yes, I find it rather surprising that quite a few prominent Anglican priests have stated that they live with a civil partner of the same sex but abstain from any sexual activity.

Regardless of whether we’re attracted to the same sex or the opposite sex, if our intention is to live chastely, why would we choose to live in whatever circumstance puts us in a near occasion to sin?

Just to be clear, I wasn’t suggesting that the OP should enter a civil partnership. That would seem unwise for the reasons stated. I was just saying that as I understood it from what I had read reported, the Catholic Church in England and Wales does not actually oppose civil partnerships as constituted in the law of England and Wales. Therefore, I assumed that mere attendance at such a ceremony would not violate his religious obligations. I understand that attendance at a same-sex marriage is a different matter, as same-sex marriages have been explicitly rejected by the English and Welsh bishops.

 

[Bithynian]

why would we choose to live in whatever circumstance puts us in a near occasion to sin

If by ‘near occasion to sin’ we mean ‘domiciled together’, I imagine the primary motivation is loneliness. I support a friend, a faithful Catholic and SSA, in her attendance at Courage (an orthodox LGBT ministry), and one of the prevailing concerns is of loneliness.

Traditional tight-knit, large families and stable communities have been severely eroded over the past several decades in most Western countries, and more vulnerable community members, such as SSA Catholics, have less recourse in times of stress and crises. Combine that with the decline of the Church in most of the West, and that faithful SSA Catholics are a relatively small and dispersed population, there suddenly looms in the horizon a very bleak vision.

So a SSA Catholic trying to live faithfully according to magisterial teaching might decide to live in close proximity with another SSA Catholic, ultimately, for survival and support.

 

[Polak]

What the OP is trying to avoid is engaging in homosexual acts. As the archbishop says, the law makes no presumption that civil partners are involved in a sexual relationship. A civil partnership is not a marriage. Thus the Church of England, which also rejects same-sex marriage, permits civil partnerships, including for clergy, on the grounds that a civil partnership is not a sexual relationship.

To be honest the Church of England accepting same-sex unions or civil partnerships is essentially them washing their hands of all responsibility. They’ve said here are the rules, but allowed for couples to place themselves in an occasion of sin pretty much on a daily basis because of it, by allowing them (including clergy) to live together. It’s like locking a dog in a cage with a piece of meat and saying ‘we’ve made it clear to him he isn’t to take a bite’.

Allowing people to be in same sex partnerships but telling them to remain celibate has caused the Anglican Church to become somewhat of a laughing stock in the UK. I obviously can’t know what goes on behind closed doors in these civil unions that members of the Anglican community are in, but basic common sense suggests that in most cases, the couples are probably not abstaining from sexual relations.

I have also not read anything from the CBCEW allowing or condoning same-sex unions. Cardinal Nichols did come under fire for what he said on the issue, but he said nothing more than that he respects the law of the land on same-sex partnerships, but nothing about it being okay for Catholics to be in one. I think he was just trying to be delicate on the subject, given how liberal and pro-gay the country he lives in is on this particular issue.

 

[LeonardoArruda]

I am expecting an invite to either a wedding, or civil partnership

Dont go man, i know everyone is going to give you the judgmental look but you cannot support your friend in that decision, you care about him and you know that (the “wedding”) is bad for him and his partner, going would be like holding hands with someone in euthanasia.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

So there is less chance that the Catholic church would be forced against their will to perform the union or recognize the union.

There is certainly no question of the Catholic Church, or any religion or denomination, being forced against their will to perform a same-sex marriage. That is guaranteed in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, s. 2. It would also be guaranteed under article 9.2 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which protects freedom of religion and restricts limitations to which that freedom may be subjected. A more interesting point is the extent to which one may be forced to recognise a same-sex marriage. For example, a Catholic hospital presumably has to recognise a same-sex spouse as a person’s legal next of kin.

However, it’s my understanding that in the UK, the same-sex marriage laws (passed in 2013) do NOT require same-sex couples to consummate for their marriage to be legal and binding. Only heterosexual couples in England and Wales have to consummate, or else the marriage can be legally annulled.

That is correct. Furthermore, for the purposes of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s. 1(2)(a), which provides for adultery being evidence of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and hence a ground for divorce, adultery is defined as conduct between the respondent and a person of the opposite sex. The relevant subsection of the Matrimonial Causes Act was in fact only inserted by statutory instrument in 2014, but the definition of adultery as consisting of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman was already long established; the amendment merely provided clarification.

When the bill was passing through Parliament, this was controversial on both sides. The lack of an obligation to remain faithful for life was seen both as proof that a same-sex marriage is not a real marriage and as a denial of true equality. My guess with regard to both the voidability issue (incapacity or wilful refusal to consummate marriage) and the definition of adultery is that government and Parliament could foresee that providing a watertight definition of what constitutes sex between a same-sex couple would prove a thorny issue that neither they nor the courts wanted to get involved in.

on the basis of one overly gay-friendly cardinal

When the English and Welsh hierarchy was restored, it was made clear that the archbishop of Westminster would be the pre-eminent bishop of England and Wales and is specifically charged with representing the Catholic Church in negotiations with secular authorities, so I imagine that he is thoroughly briefed on English and Welsh law and how it impacts on the Catholic Church.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

I assume there are no romantic assumptions at all? No romantic symbolism at all? No Family celebrations Etc. Is it like a commercial contract?

I’ve never been to a civil partnership ceremony. I assume it is usually essentially the same as a marriage ceremony.

@Polak I, too, have no idea what Anglican clergy get up to behind closed doors. What I would say is that, if anything, civil partnerships and same-sex marriage have brought the issue to the attention of the C of E authorities in a way that may have forced them to demand stricter discipline from clergy in particular. I am old enough to remember that in the 1990s (and no doubt before) it was basically accepted that many of the Anglican clergy were gay and living with partners. This was technically not allowed, but the lack of any formal basis for same-sex relationships seemed to allow liberal bishops to turn a blind eye. However, with the establishment of civil partnerships and same-sex marriage, the C of E saw a need and an opportunity to provide clarification, including demanding chastity from clergy in same-sex relationships and prohibiting same-sex marriages. As the conservative evangelical wing of the C of E becomes more influential, I think the church is actually taking a more traditional approach to marriage and sexuality.

As for the OP, I am sorry if this is all a distraction from the main question. If it is, my apologies, and feel free to ignore it. On the other hand, perhaps there is something useful to be got from the debate. I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that you should enter a civil partnership! Just that perhaps if your friend does have a civil partnership rather than a marriage, it is possible that you could attend without fear of reprisal from the Church. Perhaps it is a matter to be taken up with your priest.

Anyway, the main thing I took away from your post was that this person does not sound like a good friend to have. If I felt that I had to go to somebody’s wedding because I was afraid of how they would retaliate if I didn’t, I don’t think that is somebody whose wedding I would want to go to. In your initial post, you say that he would potentially ruin your life completely. That is not something that friends do.

 

[Polak]

Just that perhaps if your friend does have a civil partnership rather than a marriage, it is possible that you could attend without fear of reprisal from the Church.

From what the OP has said, I don’t think his friend would have any interest in that. He isn’t a practicing Catholic or even Christian, and probably doesn’t see any reason as to why he cannot get married.

 

[Polak]

@Arimor

I think firstly, you should take it step by step. There is no need to get concerned about anything that hasn’t and may not happen. Engagement doesn’t always lead to marriage. If there’s no marriage, there’s no problem for you. If it does lead to marriage, since you have drifted apart and don’t seem to have much contact with each other, he may not even invite you. He might have figured out that if you attend a Catholic mass, you might feel a certain way about him marrying a man and not invite you for that reason. If he does invite you, then you can politely decline. He may not get offended or demand a reason. My point is, there are still so many steps that would need to be taken before the possible ‘trying to make your life difficult’ scenario should occur.

On another note, the fact you believe he would get nasty and try to ‘ruin your life’ is concerning. Do you really want to know a person like that? I don’t think I have any friends who would want to do that to me if I said or did something they disagreed with. I used to know some people who did have a very ‘their way or the highway attitude’ and I’m not in touch with those people now. I would have a serious think if this is a friendship you need, but if it is, like I said, don’t get ahead of yourself. You might not even have to deal with such a scenario. If you do, I think a very polite declining of the invitation should be fine.

I know this is a personal issue but I’m not quite sure how he could ‘ruin your life’. Are you afraid he might bring up gay relations/activities you’ve had in the past? That would be nasty of him, but it’s also in the past. You should not be judged for your past, particularly if you have given up such a life. If anything it would make him look nasty for bringing it up, not make you look bad. A lot of people have done stuff in the past they are not proud of. Many celibate gay Catholics like yourself have spoken at length about their mess past and are not judged for it.

 

[MNathaniel]

MNathaniel:

why would we choose to live in whatever circumstance puts us in a near occasion to sin

If by ‘near occasion to sin’ we mean ‘domiciled together’, I imagine the primary motivation is loneliness. I support a friend, a faithful Catholic and SSA, in her attendance at Courage (an orthodox LGBT ministry), and one of the prevailing concerns is of loneliness…

So a SSA Catholic trying to live faithfully according to magisterial teaching might decide to live in close proximity with another SSA Catholic, ultimately, for survival and support.

No, I totally get the loneliness factor. What I don’t get is why someone wouldn’t still choose a domestic relationship with someone they’re categorically not sexually attracted to.

Like, I can theoretically see a SSA man and a SSA woman pairing off.

But I honestly can’t understand why two SSA men (or two SSA women), who intend chastity, mind, would strategically choose to live together. Unless each finds the other really unattractive on the individual level in a way they believe will never change (and boy that sounds like it’d take a weird conversation to arrive at confidence on that front.)

I repeat that honestly, as an OSA (opposite-sex attracted) female, who also lives nowhere near family, etc… I understand that I might never be married or in a convent. I understand loneliness. I just don’t think a rational solution (for me) would be to seek remedy for my loneliness in close domesticity with anyone I’m attracted to but can’t marry.

I mean literally, I used to be in love with a man, and he wanted to live with me. But I couldn’t choose that (and ultimately the relationship even had to end, because I wouldn’t give up my Catholic faith and he was unable to agree to live in a way that wouldn’t continually shear me away from Catholicism, or lead any children away from Catholicism). Just because I experience OSA doesn’t mean I don’t ‘get’ making the sacrifice of loneliness, and sacrificing both sexual and romantic love, to God. I do ‘get’ it. I might be single until I die, same as anyone else — and I didn’t lack a tempting offer from the devil. I also have loved ones who experience SSA.

I guess what I find a little frustrating is the idea that we’re not supposed to give the same advice to a person with SSA as with OSA. This concerns me for the sake of SSA people. I know how at-risk I’d be if I chose to live in close domesticity with someone with whom I share sexual attraction. So I currently live alone and if I ever do have a roommate I’ll make sure to select one with whom there’s no risk of sexual tension. I don’t understand why the same counsel isn’t equally wise and compassionate for all people. I don’t see the point in any of us taking on new burdens of temptation among everything else we have to deal with in life. It’s possible to arrange domestic living situations with people we’re at no risk of sexual attraction to.

 

[Polak]

But I honestly can’t understand why two SSA men (or two SSA women), who intend chastity, mind, would strategically choose to live together.

Yup. That’s why I think it’s a bit of a farce for the Anglican Church to believe two people who love each other as partners (therefore have an attraction to each other) are keeping to the celibacy rules while in a same-sex partnership.

If it’s two people with a very strong friendship but no physical attraction, who just want to avoid loneliness, then why not just remain as friends and simply spend a lot of time with each other, or even live together (as housemates would)?

 

[MNathaniel]

If it’s two people with a very strong friendship but no physical attraction, who just want to avoid loneliness, then why not just remain as friends and simply spend a lot of time with each other, or even live together (as housemates would)?

I think what one poster is saying is that there’s a legal loophole in the UK that gives economic advantages to anyone in a “civil partnership”, to the point that even (apparently) blood relatives are applying.

So I can actually see why in that country, purely platonic friends with no sexual attraction to each other whatsoever, might enter such a legal arrangement for the legal benefits.

It’s just that the other situation seems the more likely, common, and relevant to the OP’s friend’s situation. That most civil partnerships are entered into by people with pre-existing romantic relationships and sexual attraction to each other. And for most of these public ceremonies, attending as a witness indicates implicit approval for the thing being witnessed… which in this case the OP has reasonable reason for assuming (it sounds like) is a ceremony not to celebrate two people committed to chastity accessing an economic and legal advantage… but two people intending to engage in acts the Catholic faith teaches are gravely wounding to a human soul. To attend would seem to encourage the friend to think the OP isn’t concerned for him on this front. To not attend (while continuing to extend the hand of friendship) can be a witness of love and truth together.

 

[felsguy]

Just that perhaps if your friend does have a civil partnership rather than a marriage, it is possible that you could attend without fear of reprisal from the Church.

Although perhaps not intended, the wording reprisal from the Church suggests some official action or external punishment (such as excommunication?). Just to clarify, the Church very, very rarely takes such action and for very, very few reasons, and certainly not in this instance. On the other hand, were he to choose to attend whatever type of such ceremony he may be invited to, the OP definitely would find himself criticized, even condemned, by some.

 

[MNathaniel]

EmilyAlexandra:

Just that perhaps if your friend does have a civil partnership rather than a marriage, it is possible that you could attend without fear of reprisal from the Church.

Although perhaps not intended, the wording reprisal from the Church suggests some official action or external punishment (such as excommunication?). Just to clarify, the Church very, very rarely takes such action and for very, very few reasons, and certainly not in this instance. On the other hand, were he to choose to attend whatever type of such ceremony he may be invited to, the OP definitely would find himself criticized, even condemned, by some.

I’ll just chime in one more time here that personally, it would never enter my head that the reason not to attend such a ceremony is to avoid “reprisal from the Church” – or even “criticism” from other religious people!

The reason I’d personally choose not to attend is out of love for the people who invited me. The people requesting my witness at a ceremony where they intend to vow to commit sinful acts that wound themselves and separate them from God, are the people to whom I owe the witness of love to (gently, reverently) say “no”.

I would avoid going so as to not contribute to the harm of the people involved in the ceremony, by seeming to offer any encouragement or support of a ceremony I believe is ordered towards harming them. (At the same time, of course, as staying open to them as a friend and support system in other ways, both before and after the ceremony.)

Frankly I’d expect more criticism or reprisal for not going, even from fellow religious people who have bought in to the culture’s narrative that love means doing whatever other people say they want in the moment, instead of doing what one believes is actually in the long-term best interests of the other person.

 

[felsguy]

I’ll just chime in one more time here that personally, it would never enter my head that the reason not to attend such a ceremony is to avoid “ reprisal from the Church ” – or even “ criticism ” from other religious people!

Just so there’s no misunderstanding, my comment about there being no “reprisal from the Church” was directed to EmilyAlexandra, who is not Catholic but interested “in learning about Catholicism,” and not to the OP in an attempt to influence him in this matter.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

@felsguy @MNathaniel

Apologies, I didn’t mean reprisal as in some official sanction. There are countless threads on CAF where people ask whether they should attend a same-sex wedding, the wedding of a divorced person whose former spouse is still living, or the wedding of a Catholic who is marrying outside the Church. I have got the impression that the consensus seems to be that a Catholic should not attend. E.g.: “If the kids know at age 12 that mom & dad will never attend an invalid wedding (whether a gay wedding or a Catholic marrying outside the Church without permission), they will not be shocked.”

 

[MNathaniel]

I have got the impression that the consensus seems to be that a Catholic should attend.

Honestly, this is the opposite of my impression. At least at this point in time. I can’t speak for CAF overall, but in general the consensus I tend to see in Catholic forums (at least, when filtering for posters that seem to take Catholic teaching seriously) is that the kindest thing is to avoid sending mixed messages to people, and that means not attending events specifically oriented to celebrating something the Catholic Church teaches as gravely harmful.

Quickly scanning the thread you crossposted, it looks to me like even there, what people are saying is obviously “don’t cut your kids off”, like don’t destroy your relationship with someone or cut them out of your life.

But that’s not what declining to attend one ceremony does.

 

[felsguy]

No need for an apology. Not knowing the degree of your familiarity with the Catholic Church, I just wanted to make sure you didn’t think the Church goes around externally punishing sinners, at least not in more recent times.

 

[Dan123]

Yes, if pressed for an answer, “ sorry, got a family thing I can’t get out of.” And not to lie, have something planned. No need for great detail. Just spend time with family that day and don’t overthink it.

Well he can’t just spend time with family, he needs to concoct a scenario where he also can’t get out of the family event, even though he’s arranging it. Whether you think going this route is a lie or not, it’s deceptive.