gay marriage

[setter]

I’m starting get concerned that everyone at the weddings I attend might now think my attendance is an endorsement. I guess if that is to be the weight other attendees are going to put on my attendance, I better do more due diligence and require I be their pre-marriage sponsor or I won’t come.

Shall we assume that this part of the “gay” wedding vow exchange is omitted – “Should there be anyone who has cause why this couple should not be united in marriage, they must speak now or forever hold their peace.”?

Seriously, if my friend was expecting and/or needed an endorsement of his choice, I’d consider him in need of something something stronger than a conk on the head.

Regardless, that maybe just what your friend needs from you if he is planning his “gay” wedding ceremony.

 

[Orionthehunter]

setter:

Shall we assume that this part of the “gay” wedding vow exchange is omitted – "Should there be anyone who has cause why this couple should not be united in marriage, they must speak now or forever hold their peace

."?

Regardless, that maybe just what your friend needs from you if he is planning his “gay” wedding ceremony.
RE your last point, while I don’t know if I know a gay person, if I had such a friend, you may rest assured there would be no doubt long before the “ceremony” got close, the friend would know where I stand.

Regarding your first point, if I’m correct, this “forever hold your peace” is not included in a Catholic wedding as attendees are not participants and have no authority on the administering of the sacrament. If I’m incorrect, this “phrase” is essentially customary and not taken seriously. If it were, we all know of friends and relatives (especially fathers of the bride) that would have felt cause to express their opposition. But even if they did, their opinion would be of no weight.

But you have a good point. I think if someone were to attend either a gay wedding or an illicit wedding (i.e. previously married Catholic) it probably means we should prior to the wedding make sure we have personally expressed our views to our friend or relative lest the person getting married were to infer something beyond intent. I don’t know if I’ve done so in the past but your comment will cause me to do so in the future.

Right or wrong, I live my life with little regard to what people “think” about me. I’m more concerned about what people “know” about me. This is why I wouldn’t not attend because other attendees might “think” I’m pro gay wedding and would be inclined to attend to show affection for my friend or relative. At the same time, if I choose not to attend (where I think I am in this hypothetical situation), I’d do so because of my own personal views on the subject.

 

[Sean.McKenzie]

Right or wrong, I live my life with little regard to what people “think” about me. I’m more concerned about what people “know” about me. This is why I wouldn’t not attend because other attendees might “think” I’m pro gay wedding and would be inclined to attend to show affection for my friend or relative. At the same time, if I choose not to attend (where I think I am in this hypothetical situation), I’d do so because of my own personal views on the subject

This does very much smack of relativistic resoning. As Catholic we do not enjoy that type “freedom” to go off ones own personal views in regards to moral conflicts such as this. This is very much an objective immoral action (“gay marriage”), thus being affiliated in such an action would be viewed as a sinful action. Let us logically deduce this situation and the morality gravity of it. Matrimony is one of he most sacred Sacraments given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ through Holy Mother Church, therefore the perversion of such a holy Sacrament would be considered a grave sacriledge, and very sinful. To be affiliated in such an act directly or indirectly would be considered an accessory to sin, through the sin of omission. To not actively speak out or work against a grave moral infraction might be considered sinful regardless of intetnions, at the very least you might be guilty of imprudence.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Sean.McKenzie:

This does very much smack of relativistic resoning. As Catholic we do not enjoy that type “freedom” to go off ones own personal views in regards to moral conflicts such as this. This is very much an objective immoral action (“gay marriage”), thus being affiliated in such an action would be viewed as a sinful action. Let us logically deduce this situation and the morality gravity of it. Matrimony is one of he most sacred Sacraments given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ through Holy Mother Church, therefore the perversion of such a holy Sacrament would be considered a grave sacriledge, and very sinful. To be affiliated in such an act directly or indirectly would be considered an accessory to sin, through the sin of omission. To not actively speak out or work against a grave moral infraction might be considered sinful regardless of intetnions, at the very least you might be guilty of imprudence.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have not read the entire thread and especially my comments in total as explanation why you’d accuse me of being an “accessory to sin” (new category of sin and new concept to me).

First, an attendee to a “wedding” is not “affiliated” with the so-called union. The most active characterization one can make is one is an observer. Anything addendum to the charactarization (ie endorser or advocate) would require one to gather more information.

Second, it has been agreed throughout this thread that in such a situation as a gay wedding, if one were close enough to a person to go to such an event, they are close enough to express their views to them on the subject.

Third, I’m fully within my rights to choose not to attend that “wedding” because of my personal views (this is what I said is my current position but I don’t even think I know anyone gay) or I feel this is the best way for me to express my views on the matter.

Fourth, after you’ve read all of my posts on the subject and I refer you to a thread on the CAF today about how a practicing Catholic is able to attend a Wiccan pagan wedding (albiet I assume “Ask an Apologist” responder is assuming they Catholic needs to be fully aware of the theological opposition inherent in such a ceremony to the Teachings of Christ), I’m fully within my rights to choose to attend such an event to show my affection to a loved one or friend if I using my prayerful prudence reach this conclusion.

For the benefit of those who might be casually viewing this thread but not reading all of the posts. Relativism is the thesis that all points of view are equally valid. I don’t believe that a gay wedding is equal to a sacramental marriage, I’ve said it repeatedly in this thread, and I have the intellectual and moral understanding to distinguish them. Please don’t attribute a postion that is false.

 

[Sean.McKenzie]

This does very much smack of relativistic resoning. As Catholic we do not enjoy that type “freedom” to go off ones own personal views in regards to moral conflicts such as this. This is very much an objective immoral action (“gay marriage”), thus being affiliated in such an action would be viewed as a sinful action. Let us logically deduce this situation and the morality gravity of it. Matrimony is one of he most sacred Sacraments given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ through Holy Mother Church, therefore the perversion of such a holy Sacrament would be considered a grave sacriledge, and very sinful. To be affiliated in such an act directly or indirectly would be considered an accessory to sin, through the sin of omission. To not actively speak out or work against a grave moral infraction might be considered sinful regardless of intetnions, at the very least

you might be guilty of imprudence.*
*I have almost completely followed this enitre thread and i still stand on this position, which believe to be the Church’s postion. The truth is the truth is the truth, “Gay marriage” is a lie, you were present and did nothing to speak out against that lie which offends Holy Mother Church and God himself. It is an attack on morality and truth itself, your presence as every one has indicated was a form of acceptance and support. If you truly wanted to evangelize, then you should have as you stated before done it beforehand, and should have withheld you presence. If this person was a true friend, they would have been able to understand your witholding you attendance. I am well aware of what Relativism is, and you are flirting with that school of thinking which is very apparent by reading your own words. There are objective truths, and the objective truth in this is that it is morally unacceptable. *

 

[Orionthehunter]

**
I have almost completely followed this enitre thread and i still stand on this position, which believe to be the Church’s postion. The truth is the truth is the truth, “Gay marriage” is a lie, you were present and did nothing to speak out against that lie which offends Holy Mother Church and God himself. It is an attack on morality and truth itself, your presence as every one has indicated was a form of acceptance and support. If you truly wanted to evangelize, then you should have as you stated before done it beforehand, and should have withheld you presence. If this person was a true friend, they would have been able to understand your witholding you attendance. I am well aware of what Relativism is, and you are flirting with that school of thinking which is very apparent by reading your own words. There are objective truths, and the objective truth in this is that it is morally unacceptable.

I’ve never been to a gay wedding, I don’t know that I know anyone gay, I believe it to be morally illicit and intrincally disordered, if I knew someone gay I’d tell them my views on the subject.

If you make an assumption that attendance is a form of support of the event, you are making an assumption that is based on erroneous and false information. If you assume the worst about a person based on insufficient information and verbally communicate your presumption that is untrue, you are bearing false witness. There is nothing relativistic in my words or views. What part of that don’t you understand?

 

[estesbob]

Orionthehunter:

I’ve never been to a gay wedding, I don’t know that I know anyone gay, I believe it to be morally illicit and intrincally disordered, if I knew someone gay I’d tell them my views on the subject.

?

But you have no problem attending one and becuase you just KNOW that you dont approve the hell with anyone who sees you there and thinks you are supporting the union. That pretty well summarizes your views, correct?

 

[Philthy]

connieo:

I got in a heated discussion with family members. I said I would never attend a gay wedding, that it would be wrong. I was told that I was a HYPOCRITE AND THAT JESUS ATE AND DRANK WITH SINNERS.Not being a great debater ( or apologist) I insisted that Jesus did eat and drink with sinners , but didn’t stand by and watch them sinning, etc. etc.and that He also told sinners to go and sin no more. What should I have said? Am I correct to say it would be sinful to go? Thanks, Connieo

There is a difference: you have not said that you would not eat and drink in there presence - you said you would not attend their mockery of the sacrament of marriage. Of course Jesus ate and drank with sinners - there was no one else to party with and he came to save sinners by calling them from their sinful ways to “follow him”. You are now following him. Gay “marriage” is - in your eyes - a distortion of the sacrament of marriage established by God for a man and a woman and is something you cannot endorse. You are not judging them as individuals, you are judging your OWN actions according to your faith. That faith prohibits you from tacitly acknowledging their “marriage” by attending. You can be sorry that your faith has offended them, but your fidelity to Jesus comes first and scorn from others for His sake is a blessing in your eyes.

 

[Liberian]

Connie,

Hello and welcome to the Catholic Answers Forums. I wish you a blessed and fruitful time here.

Part of attending a wedding is to be a witness to the marriage, to serve as part of the community in support of the married couple in their life together and as they bear and raise their children. A “gay marriage” is not a marriage at all, and in present-day American society is an overt mockery and travesty of marriage. You are absolutely right not to attend a so-called “gay wedding” in that to attend one would be to state by your presence that you consider it to be a real wedding and not the mockery that it is.

• Liberian

 

[Orionthehunter]

estesbob:

But you have no problem attending one and becuase you just KNOW that you dont approve the hell with anyone who sees you there and thinks you are supporting the union. That pretty well summarizes your views, correct?

If you had read all my many posts, you’d know that attending a event like this would cause me consternation and based on what I know now, I don’t think I’d attend.

All I’ve tried to do is point out is that the right answer is not always simple. For you and most of the people on here, it might be simple. I respect that.

But if the person was a dear loved one, it is not so simple. I’ve tried to explain another perspective. As Daniel referred us to Romans 14 and I try to reflect on my own personal mantra to always aspire to find Christ in others (especially in those it is most hard), to love them, and to be Christ to all I meet, I confident the Holy Spirit will engender in me the right prudent decision if faced with this situation. I believe I’ve been called to do all I can to maintain relationships so I can be a beacon for Christ to them. I just have a hard time seeing how God is served by every Christian disowning a person who is consumed by sin. God will do that at judgment in the meantime, I’m going to be available for the Holy Spirit to use as He sees fit. I pray that Connie will too prayerfully find the right answer to this difficult question.

 

[estesbob]

Orionthehunter:

But if the person was a dear loved one, it is not so simple. I’ve tried to explain another perspective. As Daniel referred us to Romans 14 and I try to reflect on my own personal mantra to always aspire to find Christ in others (especially in those it is most hard), to love them, and to be Christ to all I meet, I confident the Holy Spirit will engender in me the right prudent decision if faced with this situation. I believe I’ve been called to do all I can to maintain relationships so I can be a beacon for Christ to them. I just have a hard time seeing how God is served by every Christian disowning a person who is consumed by sin. God will do that at judgment in the meantime, I’m going to be available for the Holy Spirit to use as He sees fit. I pray that Connie will too prayerfully find the right answer to this difficult question.

Here is why I have been so pointed in disagreeing with you on this,.I have been faced with this situation . I declined to attend-even though I know it caused hurt feeling among close family members and friends. But they know where I stand and they know I do not compromise my principles to please those I love. We witness by our actions more than by our words.

Regardless of Connies good attentions if even one person looks at her and thinks-"there is a Catholic who approves of Homosexual marriage " she has failed and failed miserably. She has caused scandal and she has lessened our Church in the eyses of at least one individual.

 

[Sean.McKenzie]

Orionthehunter:

I guess I’m a victim of high mindedness and impracticality.

To answer your question, I wouldn’t clap or congratulate them. That would be an endorsement. And throughout the “ceremony”, I hope I’d have the wisdom and charity to be focused on praying that they find the fallacy of their “union” and not focusing on my repulsion of implications of their “union.”

Regarding your last point, one can go to Mass and not participate. Additionally, attendees of a sacramental wedding are not participants but observants. Not even the Priest is a participant in the sacrament itself but a representative of Christ. Only God and the couple are participants. So I guess my answer is that participating and attending are not the same thing.

You are correct in that the Priest is not part of the covenantal relationship of the marriage where the husband, wife and God are the primary participants. But the Priest and everyone in attendance participates in the wedding in that they are, by their presence, a witness to the marriage. They are by their presents there unless they voice objection” you are either giving your approval or you are speaking those are the only 2 choices. The Priest is an essential element of the wedding, as are the participants, but more so the priest and in a special way because he is acting in the person of Christ in Persona Christi, by wedding them in the great sacrament of Matrimony. The absolute and irrefutable truth is that the Priest and the congregation are not just “onlookers” or non-participants, but play an active role in that Sacrament.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Sean.McKenzie:

You are correct in that the Priest is not part of the covenantal relationship of the marriage where the husband, wife and God are the primary participants. But the Priest and everyone in attendance participates in the wedding in that they are, by their presence, a witness to the marriage. They are by their presents there unless they voice objection” you are either giving your approval or you are speaking those are the only 2 choices. The Priest is an essential element of the wedding, as are the participants, but more so the priest and in a special way because he is acting in the person of Christ in Persona Christi, by wedding them in the great sacrament of Matrimony. The absolute and irrefutable truth is that the Priest and the congregation are not just “onlookers” or non-participants, but play an active role in that Sacrament.

You are confusing two uses of the word “witness”. One use is purely as “observer” and another is “testiment to validity”. Except for the people who sign the formal legal documents, whether it be a valid sacramental Catholic wedding, a Protestant wedding, a civil wedding or a gay “wedding” the people in attendence do not in any way testify to validity but are only observers.

Secondly, the description you describe above is that of a Catholic Wedding where the Priest does play a vital role but in a gay wedding there is no such “in Persona Christi” role.

Here is why I have been so pointed in disagreeing with you on this,.I have been faced with this situation . I declined to attend-even though I know it caused hurt feeling among close family members and friends. But they know where I stand and they know I do not compromise my principles to please those I love. We witness by our actions more than by our words.

I applaud you for prayerfully making such a decision and not compromising your principles. But as Romans 14 tells us, we can’t automatically assume that the reaction of another to a particular situation different than our reaction necessarily means they are acting in a sinful or scandalous way.

Regardless of Connies good attentions if even one person looks at her and thinks-"there is a Catholic who approves of Homosexual marriage " she has failed and failed miserably. She has caused scandal and she has lessened our Church in the eyses of at least one individual.

This is the heart of the issue. Intentions are the key to whether it is sinful. Without intent to sin or an act being defined as inherently sinful (ie theft, murder, etc), one can’t sin. I hope we don’t have to go into a what is sin for this to be clear.

So long as Connie is not going there with the intent to endorse the wedding or becuase of view that “whatever makes them happy” (your relativism argument) but is going there for right reasons (to show love), there is no sin.

In my mind, the argument most powerful throughout this thread is the issue of scandal. For instance, a Priest’s attendance while wearing clerics has more potential for scandal than my attendance.

This being said, we have to be careful that attendance even for a Priest is necessarily inherently scandalous. Whether it be a gay wedding or a Protestant service involving at least one previously married Catholic w/o benefit of an annulment, there is an issue of validity. But in both cases, I think it a stretch to think that attendance should be interpreted as “endorsement”.

Especially if one sees a person there who they think should be morally opposed to the circumstances of the wedding, one would more likely be right to assume that their attendance is a sign of affection for their friend/relative rather than endorsement. There is actually sin if our first assumption is the worst of another and not the best.