gay weddings

[billcu1]

I thought I would ask this to satisfy my burning curiosity and help anyone else that might be in such a situation. Seeing that God doesn’t approve of homosexuality, going to a gay wedding would be out. For me that’s the way I feel. And God comes first. Before any gay friends or children or anything. [Does] that does mean I don’t like gay people. No. Would it be a sin to go to a gay wedding? IMO I think it would. Has the church made any official decision?

 

[DavidFilmer]

The usual answer still applies: There is no such thing as an act which is sinful by the nature of the act alone. All sin, either venial or mortal, requires some degree of knowledge of the sinful nature of the act and some measure of freewill consent.

I don’t know if we have any guidance from the Magesterium in this regard to being present at gay “weddings.” One one hand, someone could object that it makes a mockery of a Sacrament, so we should not go. But, on the other hand, one could say the same about protestant communion services, and I consider a mockery of the Body and Blood of Jesus a more serious offence (it is certainly not less serious). Yet, we are allowed to attend (but not partake of) protestant communion services.

I see no potential conflict if the couple are “married” in a purely civil process (by a judge or a justice of the peace).

 

[billcu1]

The usual answer still applies: There is no such thing as an act which is sinful by the nature of the act alone. All sin, either venial or mortal, requires some degree of knowledge of the sinful nature of the act and some measure of freewill consent.

I don’t know if we have any guidance from the Magesterium in this regard to being present at gay “weddings.” One one hand, someone could object that it makes a mockery of a Sacrament, so we should not go. But, on the other hand, one could say the same about protestant communion services, and I consider a mockery of the Body and Blood of Jesus a more serious offence (it is certainly not less serious). Yet, we are allowed to attend (but not partake of) protestant communion services.

I see no potential conflict if the couple are “married” in a purely civil process (by a judge or a justice of the peace).

Your first response above I don’t quite understand right off. But I think it’s important.

“There is no such thing as an act which is sinful by the nature of the act alone.”

by the “nature” of the act alone What do you mean by “nature”. I suppose maybe remoteness might apply here too. Can persons who have heard this is sin [getting married. I mean the gay couple] but don’t care, be sinning then? They don’t care because maybe they don’t take it being a sin seriously?

 

[DavidFilmer]

by the “nature” of the act alone

I mean there’s no such thing as an act that is always sinful, regardless of whether we have any degree of knowledge or consent.

Consider the act of killing somebody. Given sufficient knowledge and consent, this could be mortally sinful. Given imperfect knowledge or consent (such as an unintended death due to our avoidable negligence) it might be only venally sinful. Given a situation where we believe the act to be justified (such as self-defense with no reasonable alternative) then the act is not EVEN sinful (because we have no knowledge or consent regarding the sinfulness of the act, since we firmly believe it to not be sinful at all).

It’s the same act, possibly involving the same parties, but it can be mortally or venially sinful, or not sinful at all, depending on our degree of knowledge and consent.

 

[billcu1]

I mean there’s no such thing as an act that is always sinful, regardless of whether we have any degree of knowledge or consent.

Consider the act of killing somebody. Given sufficient knowledge and consent, this could be mortally sinful. Given imperfect knowledge or consent (such as an unintended death due to our avoidable negligence) it might be only venally sinful. Given a situation where we believe the act to be justified (such as self-defense with no reasonable alternative) then the act is not EVEN sinful (because we have no knowledge or consent regarding the sinfulness of the act, since we firmly believe it to not be sinful at all).

It’s the same act, possibly involving the same parties, but it can be mortally or venially sinful, or not sinful at all, depending on our degree of knowledge and consent.

Ok so if I look at porn it isn’t always sinful. Hum. I understand what your saying above.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Ok so if I look at porn it isn’t always sinful. Hum. I understand what your saying above.

If I hand you a piece of paper and you look at it, and discover that I handed you a naughty picture, then you do not sin.

So you looked at porn without sinning.

Of course, if you *keep *looking…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I mean there’s no such thing as an act that is always sinful, regardless of whether we have any degree of knowledge or consent.

While I agree with you, the church definitely disagrees. It speaks of “intrinsically evil” acts, like masturbation or abortion. It says that there are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances for such “intrinsically evil” actions.

Though I have to repeat that I agree with you.

 

[Bookcat]

I mean there’s no such thing as an act that is always sinful, regardless of whether we have any degree of knowledge or consent.

.

That would not be correct.

Yes there are acts that are always sinful - objectively so. Always and everywhere. Such are “Intrinsically evil”. Speaking of the act in itself.

 

[billcu1]

If I hand you a piece of paper and you look at it, and discover that I handed you a naughty picture, then you do not sin.

So you looked at porn without sinning.

Of course, if you *keep *looking…

Ok. I see. So if a pop up of porn on the computer came up and I got rid of it. That’s not sin. But if I went to the site. That’s much different. I see then.

 

[Bookcat]

I thought I would ask this to satisfy my burning curiosity and help anyone else that might be in such a situation. Seeing that God doesn’t approve of homosexuality, going to a gay wedding would be out. For me that’s the way I feel. And God comes first. Before any gay friends or children or anything. [Does] that does mean I don’t like gay people. No. Would it be a sin to go to a gay wedding? IMO I think it would. Has the church made any official decision?

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.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm#IV

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#IV

 

[DavidFilmer]

While I agree with you, the church definitely disagrees. It speaks of “intrinsically evil” acts, like masturbation or abortion.

Of course, if a pregnant lady were kidnapped and aborted by force, she would incur no sin.

But it’s hard to imagine that the people perpetuating such a crime could be acting without ANY knowledge or consent. Likewise for masturbation. Some acts are unlikely to be possible without any knowledge or consent.

But isn’t this a thread about gay weddings? Why don’t we return to that topic.

 

[billcu1]

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.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm#IV

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#IV

So going to a wedding would be passively participating? My mother rents to a gay couple. Does that mean anything? Is she “remote”.

 

[billcu1]

While I agree with you, the church definitely disagrees. It speaks of “intrinsically evil” acts, like masturbation or abortion. It says that there are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances for such “intrinsically evil” actions.

Though I have to repeat that I agree with you.

I know masturbation is wrong. I’m not sure why. But it is. Must be some confusion from sin.

 

[Bookcat]

So going to a wedding would be passively participating? My mother rents to a gay couple. Does that mean anything? Is she “remote”.

Attending a “gay wedding” is by it social nature “celebrating such”. “Approving such”.

(As for the second part of the question that gets into the question of kinds of cooperation - and one would have to examine the case and apply the principles)

 

[billcu1]

Attending a “gay wedding” is by it social nature “celebrating such”. “Approving such”.

(As for the second part of the question that gets into the question of kinds of cooperation - and one would have to examine the case and apply the principles)

I have also heard from EWTN I believe. That mortal sin is just that. You’re in sin or Grace. If you’re in mortal sin doing another mortal sin doesn’t “pile up” or have that effect. When you’re forgiven by reconciliation then you’re in Grace. That kind of sounds like all the discussion about sins is moot in a way.

 

[Bookcat]

I have also heard fIf you’re in mortal sin doing another mortal sin doesn’t “pile up” or have that effect. When you’re forgiven by reconciliation then you’re in Grace.

Yes one is either “in life” or “in death”. But it is also true that yes additional mortal sins DO make matter quite worse. If one falls into a mortal sin -repent right away -seek perfect contrition and get to confession.

 

[DavidFilmer]

So going to a wedding would be passively participating?

Homosexuals do not commit sin by having a wedding ceremony. They commit sin by engaging in illicit sexual conduct. I presume this doesn’t take place at the ceremony.

 

[St_Francis]

Of course, if a pregnant lady were kidnapped and aborted by force, she would incur no sin.

But it’s hard to imagine that the people perpetuating such a crime could be acting without ANY knowledge or consent. Likewise for masturbation. Some acts are unlikely to be possible without any knowledge or consent.

But isn’t this a thread about gay weddings? Why don’t we return to that topic.

I think your original statement would have been better put: There are some acts which are by their nature sinful, but the personal guilt of a particular perpetrator of that act may be mitigated, since the way you put it is easily misunderstood.

 

[JohnR77]

The usual answer still applies: There is no such thing as an act which is sinful by the nature of the act alone. All sin, either venial or mortal, requires some degree of knowledge of the sinful nature of the act and some measure of freewill consent.

.

David, now I see why you are so insistent on defending your faulty statements even when proven wrong by others. You start with faulty ( or confused) premises. Although, I could say you are half right.

You fail to distinguish between the objective sinfulness of an act and the personal guilt, or the personal sin, of the person committing the act. You seem to confuse the two as if they are one, or at least your words do not make the distinction.

1. An Objectively sinful act : Whether or not an act is contrary to God’s will.
2. Personal Sin : The guilt a person incurs by committing an objectively sinful act.

These are two different things.

On how to deal with the question of not attending a marriage outside of the Catholic Church, I started a different thread here

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13181392#post13181392

.

 

[DavidFilmer]

1. An Objectively sinful act : Whether or not an act is contrary to God’s will.
2. Personal Sin : The guilt a person incurs by committing an objectively sinful act.

These are two different things.

Yes, I think this distinction clears up much confusion.

A person might do something that is objectively sinful but not incur personal sin. That sounds like a contradiction but it is not when understood in this context.