Having close friends that are homosexual

[Stylteralmaldo]

Are there any celebrations you feel it would be improper for Catholics who attend? If one attends a celebration does that not mean they are participating in celebrating whatever is being celebrated?

My previous post (#199) quoted the Catechism paragraph 1868 where it says to the effect that we should not directly and voluntarily participate in the sinful behavior of another. I think we can all agree that the homosexual act itself is direct and voluntary participation in that act. The “marriage ceremony” is a “consent” to do that act so I would also call that direct and voluntary. The shades of gray comes after that. Is the “pastor” a direct participant or only indirect? How about the witnesses (best man and maid of honor)? Other guests of the wedding? It seems that all the other scenarios are certainly voluntary (unless a gun was put to their head or something similar ) but is it directly participating in that sin?

Even Pope Benedict didn’t say we were to 100% refrain from going to such a “wedding”. Here’s LJN21’s quote of Pope Benedict from post #21:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application.

It’s the part I bolded that I am referring to here. We should refrain from attending as far as possible but it isn’t an absolute.

To answer your question: Yes, there are celebrations where I feel it would be improper for Catholics who attend. If they decide to go, they are participating on some level, but that does not mean they are directly participating. I know it’s a fine line. But it’s a fine line we all need to discern with proper spiritual guidance.

 

[rinnie]

My previous post (#199) quoted the Catechism paragraph 1868 where it says to the effect that we should not directly and voluntarily participate in the sinful behavior of another. I think we can all agree that the homosexual act itself is direct and voluntary participation in that act. The “marriage ceremony” is a “consent” to do that act so I would also call that direct and voluntary. The shades of gray comes after that. Is the “pastor” a direct participant or only indirect? How about the witnesses (best man and maid of honor)? Other guests of the wedding? It seems that all the other scenarios are certainly voluntary (unless a gun was put to their head or something similar ) but is it directly participating in that sin?

Even Pope Benedict didn’t say we were to 100% refrain from going to such a “wedding”. Here’s LJN21’s quote of Pope Benedict from post #21:

It’s the part I bolded that I am referring to here. We should refrain from attending as far as possible but it isn’t an absolute.

To answer your question: Yes, there are celebrations where I feel it would be improper for Catholics who attend. If they decide to go, they are participating on some level, but that does not mean they are directly participating. I know it’s a fine line. But it’s a fine line we all need to discern with proper spiritual guidance.

Now you got me here. How can you be participation on some level but not directly participation? As far as participation goes you either are or your are not. You cant have it both ways. And i think thats the problem with this whole thread. You dont want to hurt or be judgemental but sometimes in order to stick up for you faith you have to. .

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Is this the kind of ROFL that might be effected when somebody has lost a debate?
{/QUOTE]
No but it can be the type of ROFL for those who intervene in conversations not directed at them in some attempt to be clever

I can see in a way what you mean when you say CA is extreme. They have a sort of zero-tolerance policy regarding lies and b-s.

 

[SirOscar]

I guess I would say that as an invite to any wedding, one is not directly participating in the wedding. One would be sitting in a pew observing the event.

Now if you are willfully taking part of the wedding, best man, grooms men, ushers, bridesmaids, etc, you would be participating in the wedding indirectly.

I think this is Stylteralmaldo is trying to convey, but he can correct me if I am wrong.

Technically, the only ones directly participating in a wedding is the couple themselves. They are the ones who are taking the action to marry.

I think the priest/celebrant, bridal party, etc. are indirectly participating.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I guess I would say that as an invite to any wedding, one is not directly participating in the wedding. One would be sitting in a pew observing the event.

That would be indirect participation IMHO.

SirOscar:

Now if you are willfully taking part of the wedding, best man, grooms men, ushers, bridesmaids, etc, you would be participating in the wedding indirectly.

Here I’m leaning towards the best man and maid of honor (the witnesses) as being direct participants because a wedding requires witnesses for it to be valid (at least legally) - if I’m not mistaken. As far as the other persons participating such as bridesmaids, groomsmen, ushers, etc. I would lean towards indirect participation since it is not required for a marriage to happen, yet direct participation can be argued since they are wilfully participating in the action taking place.

SirOscar:

Technically, the only ones directly participating in a wedding is the couple themselves. They are the ones who are taking the action to marry.

The couple can’t just marry themselves. Witnesses are required and a celebrant. Yes, it is the couple that says the vows, but the vows must be witnessed to and oversaw by someone to be valid - at least legally.

SirOscar:

I think the priest/celebrant, bridal party, etc. are indirectly participating.

IMHO the priest/celebrant is the most direct participant other than the actual couple getting married. Is it direct enough to be considered direct or is it still indirect? I’m leaning towards direct as in that celebrant is violating the “direct and voluntary” participation.

urban-hermit quoted catechism paragraph 2357 which says we are under no circumstances approve of homosexual acts. It’s difficult for someone to say they are not approving of a homosexual act when you (1) are the celebrant or (2) are a witness and directly participating in the event.

As far as all of the others who indirectly participate, that is not as clear. They are observing the event and are participating on some level, but are they approving of the wedding?

It seems to me that attending a homosexual wedding should be very rare indeed. As Pope Benedict XVI said, we should not go as far as possible. His statement leaves room for a rational judgement as to whether someone should go to such a marriage ceremony - but he doesn’t make an absolute statement regarding the situation.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

How can you be participation on some level but not directly participation?

Well, the catechism (paragraph 1868) says it is a sin to directly and voluntarily participate in a sin of another. It doesn’t only say voluntarily. My stance however is that indirect participation needs to be discerned by the individual due to the scandal such participation may create. In other words, indirect participation might give the impression that one approves of the wedding. Attendence at such a wedding doesn’t give me that impression necessarily. Someone standing up as an usher (for example) would have a hard time explaining how they are not approving of the wedding (Catechism paragraph 2357) for instance.

rinnie:

You cant have it both ways. And i think thats the problem with this whole thread. You dont want to hurt or be judgemental but sometimes in order to stick up for you faith you have to…

We can not be judgemental! It’s the whole seeing the sliver in someone’s eye but not seeing our own log analogy.

We must leave room for the individual person’s rational judgement on how to proceed in the matter. The Pope strongly discourages such paricipation, but he doesn’t flat out say under no circumstance are we to refrain. He said “as far as possible”. Those words themselves are very strong, but they still are not absolute otherwise he would not have included that phrase.

 

[rinnie]

Well, the catechism (paragraph 1868) says it is a sin to directly and voluntarily participate in a sin of another. It doesn’t only say voluntarily. My stance however is that indirect participation needs to be discerned by the individual due to the scandal such participation may create. In other words, indirect participation might give the impression that one approves of the wedding. Attendence at such a wedding doesn’t give me that impression necessarily. Someone standing up as an usher (for example) would have a hard time explaining how they are not approving of the wedding (Catechism paragraph 2357) for instance.

We can not be judgemental! It’s the whole seeing the sliver in someone’s eye but not seeing our own log analogy.

We must leave room for the individual person’s rational judgement on how to proceed in the matter. The Pope strongly discourages such paricipation, but he doesn’t flat out say under no circumstance are we to refrain. He said “as far as possible”. Those words themselves are very strong, but they still are not absolute.

Right it says directly and voluntarily, and if the Pope strongly discourages, what more can he say. If i srongly discourage my kids to not do something i am saying No, Now to stronglly encourage would be yes, but hey maybe its just me. Just like anything else today you can turn anything around to fit into what you want, but that doesnt make it so. Maybe the Pope is going to have to explain to people that when he strongly discourages things he means he doesnt want you to do it, or just plain say No. Its sad when no one wants to hear no today. But honestly you can do what you want, its your choice, but at least know its not advised by the Pope, thats what he means no,.

 

[urban-hermit]

My previous post (#199) quoted the Catechism paragraph 1868 where it says to the effect that we should not directly and voluntarily participate in the sinful behavior of another.

I want to post here the catechism paragraph you are quoting. I am sensitive to the fact that this is a difficult issue for you. But the question is how are we going to live our faith and stay faithful to Christ and His commandments. Nobody on this thread has ever shown how you can follow these instructions but at the same time attend a gay “marriage”.

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.

SOURCE:
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1868.htm

 

[wanner47]

ROFL . You know we never learn a thing when we always conclude that the other person must be wrong.

And we never learn a thing by obstinately insisting we’re right, either.

Yes I am aware of what he says. I don’t agree with it, and I would not be citing to CA as authority. Their position is extreme.

If by “extreme” you mean “follows the teachings of the Church,” then yes, I agree. You see, I prefer advice that is “extreme” (i.e., in line with Church teaching) as opposed to “wrong.”

I have asked my parish priest and 2 sisters and consulted everything I could find on the subject in terms of encyclicals. I can find no such extreme position as you ennuciate.

Then please do send me their e-mail addresses so I may get their perspectives as well. I’m interested to know why they feel it’s acceptable to celebrate invalid unions, given Church teaching on this matter.

At any rate, I’d rather err on the side of following Jesus’ teachings than err on the side of making people happy or keeping peace in my family.

Given that your questions are based on an erroneous assumption which I explained I can see no need to, but if you must. the answer would be no to both. (They happen to be criminal acts in case you missed that point as well.)

Homosexual behavior used to be criminal, as well. Did it magically become morally acceptable once civil law decreed it acceptable?

Yep, you can of course just give off all responsibility to the Church.

No, I’m responsible for my own decisions. However, I am attempting to follow the teachings of Christ and His Church to the best of my ability, and I am only accountable to them, not society or my family.

But of course, it begs the question, it is your interpretation that the Church has done so in this instance yet you have shown me nothing to prove that contention.

I beg to differ. I have shown you plenty of evidence to prove my contention. You just choose to dismiss it.

 

[wanner47]

Am I wrong to say that Noah’s ark is not an historical fact? Is **this **what you believe?

You are wrong to decree that your method of Biblical interpretation is the correct one.

Even “facts” by a “Biblical scholar” as you say- are merely interpretations.

Yeah. You know, it’s really too bad Christ didn’t promise to leave the Holy Spirit with a particular church so we wouldn’t have that problem. Oh, wait a minute…

What we believe we believe based on “faith”. You weren’t there. Nor was I, nor was anybody who is alive today.

And you take it on faith that the story is a bunch of baloney. Um, okay… that sounds more like skepticism than faith.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

"rinnie:

…Just like anything else today you can turn anything around to fit into what you want, but that doesnt make it so…

I whole-heartedly agree with you. There is a danger of reading into something solely because you want it to mean what you want it to mean. This issue is no different.

rinnie:

…But honestly you can do what you want, its your choice, but at least know its not advised by the Pope, thats what he means no…

It is not advised by the Pope. I believe the Pope strongly discourages us from going to a homosexual wedding.

…I am sensitive to the fact that this is a difficult issue for you.

Actually, this isn’t a difficult issue for me, but I appreciate the thought nonetheless.

urban-hermit:

But the question is how are we going to live our faith and stay faithful to Christ and His commandments.

Agreed. This is the reason we are discussing this. I’m merely saying that it isn’t all cut and dry.

 

[urban-hermit]

Agreed. This is the reason we are discussing this. I’m merely saying that it isn’t all cut and dry.

Well, let’s kind of zero in on this. I will re-quote the catechism and bold the part that I think is pretty much impossible to follow if you attend a gay “marriage”. And please you or anyone (except meadowspirit) give me your feedback on how one would attend such a ceremony and still follow this catechism instruction. Thanks in advance.

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.

SOURCE:
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1868.htm

 

[fix]

As far as all of the others who indirectly participate, that is not as clear. They are observing the event and are participating on some level, but are they approving of the wedding?

Under most circumstances, why would one attend if they did not support the event? If someone attends, under protest, then there may be a case where remote material cooperation with evil may be the case.

As Pope Benedict XVI said, we should not go as far as possible. His statement leaves room for a rational judgement as to whether someone should go to such a marriage ceremony - but he doesn’t make an absolute statement regarding the situation.

The quote you gave was referring to civil laws and their enactment, not about attending a gay wedding as a guest.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

The quote you gave was referring to civil laws and their enactment, not about attending a gay wedding as a guest.

It also deals with its application, not only its enactment (bolded for emphasis). But I suppose you could make a case that it’s application deals with the parties directly involved in its application (couple getting married, witnesses, celebrant) and not the wedding guests (indirect participants). And if that’s the case, then we have no guidelines other than what the catechism says on cooperation in sinful behavior which only covers those directly and voluntarily participating anyway:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application.

 

[fix]

It also deals with its application, not only its enactment (bolded for emphasis). But I suppose you could make a case that it’s application deals with the parties directly involved in its application (couple getting married, witnesses, celebrant) and not the wedding guests (indirect participants). And if that’s the case, then we have no guidelines other than what the catechism says on cooperation in sinful behavior which only covers those directly and voluntarily participating anyway:

The full quote says we have a duty to oppose these so called unions. Any remote material cooperation while theoretically possible would seem to be an exception.

I guess my point is I agree it is possible, in limited circumstances, to attend some such function but one is really hard pressed to find legitimate reasons.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Well, let’s kind of zero in on this. I will re-quote the catechism and bold the part that I think is pretty much impossible to follow if you attend a gay “marriage”. And please you or anyone (except meadowspirit) give me your feedback on how one would attend such a ceremony and still follow this catechism instruction. Thanks in advance.

• by … praising, or approving them

If you go and congratulate them (praise) or say I hope you stay together until the end of your days (approval), then that would be explicit praise and approval.

I understand that merely being there can convey implied praise and approval for what they are doing, but that isn’t necessarily the case. The person going to the event should make it clear, if they haven’t already, that they disapprove of the action they are undertaking.

As I stated earlier, such attendence should be rare. In everything we do in life, we should have the person’s salvation in mind. In the case of a homosexual wedding, we need to ask ourselves if we would be doing more harm to that soul by attending or by not attending.

After re-reading Pope Benedict XVI’s comments, I’m convinced we have even less guidance on this subject than I first thought. But that’s okay. It is a serious matter; one that should not be taken lightly. I bolded that part to emphasize my position.

In rinnie’s case, she’s dealing with a niece. In SirOscar’s case she’s dealing with a brother. Understanding the relationship these two individuals have with the homosexual person as well as the state of mind of the homosexual person in question is important in knowing how to proceed regarding their level of involvement - if any.

 

[blessedtoo]

If you go and congratulate them (praise) or say I hope you stay together until the end of your days (approval), then that would be explicit praise and approval.

I understand that merely being there can convey implied praise and approval for what they are doing, but that isn’t necessarily the case. The person going to the event should make it clear, if they haven’t already, that they disapprove of the action they are undertaking.

As I stated earlier, such attendence should be rare. In everything we do in life, we should have the person’s salvation in mind. In the case of a homosexual wedding, we need to ask ourselves if we would be doing more harm to that soul by attending or by not attending.

After re-reading Pope Benedict XVI’s comments, I’m convinced we have even less guidance on this subject than I first thought. But that’s okay. It is a serious matter; one that should not be taken lightly. I bolded that part to emphasize my position.

In rinnie’s case, she’s dealing with a niece. In SirOscar’s case she’s dealing with a brother. Understanding the relationship these two individuals have with the homosexual person as well as the state of mind of the homosexual person in question is important in knowing how to proceed regarding their level of involvement - if any.

This thread really illustrates the collective “shizophrenia” of our culture, especially our Catholic culture. This idea that we hold these profoundly important beliefs yet we can deconstruct and adapt them to specific situations is a serious problem for all Catholics.

This thread also illustrates a severe lack of understanding of the meaning of marriage. If Catholics are actually considering the secular notion that a gay “marriage” is equal in validity to traditional marriage, then the problem runs much deeper than gay or straight. If Catholics are simply “indulging” this notion of gay marriage for the sake of pleasing their homosexual friends and family, I consider that quite condescending.

It IS confusing for many Catholics to discern EXACTLY where the Church stands on this issue of attending gay “weddings” because so many have put their personal interpretation on the teaching. With Parishes supporting ambiguously defined GBLT clubs, a priesthood scarred by sexual abuse, Bishops waffling on the issue, and fellow Catholics using anecdotal “evidence” to prove both sides of the issue, it’s no wonder there are so many OPINIONS on the matter. But anyone who was raised with even a modicum of Catholic catechesis SHOULD have enough uneasiness about the subject to delve further. And you don’t have to look too far to find the ACTUAL teachings - not the theological spin.

Most of us on this forum have some relationship with homosexual friends and family. Many of us may find ourselves in this situation, struggling with decisions motivated primarily by feelings. I LOVE my sister, who has been with her “partner” for 25 years. Should they ever decide to “marry”, I will be faced with this scenario.

Since my sis knows where I stand on the issue of homosexual behavior, it would seem bizarre for her to want me present. Even with hetero marriage, couples often “univite” family members who don’t approve of their union. Who wants a sourpuss there on the big day? But, if she did invite me, and I went, how could I POSSIBLY be sending a consistent message by participating in something, however indirectly, that I am so clearly not in agreement with? How odd would that be?

It’s important to keep in mind what our homosexual friends and family members are ASKING of us when they invite us to their “weddings”. Especially those who allegedly “know” where we stand - what is the motive? We have only to reflect on the reasons why we ourselves invite loved ones to our celebrations. We are hoping they will join us in acknowledging that something good is happening. Is it that much different for our gay brothers and sisters? In fact, I would argue that this acknowledgement is even more important to them, since it is a new “right” which validates their relationship in the eyes of others.

We have all been in situations where a friend or family member has engaged in undesirable behavior that we can’t support. Do we agonize about losing their love or driving them away from God in these scenarios like we do on the homosexual issues? Why does this topic cause us so much consternation?

If we are ambiguous about the issue of homosexuality, we will be unclear about gay marriage. If we are clear on the former, the latter will cause pain and heartache perhaps, but NOT confusion.

 

[SirOscar]

Thank you Stylteralmaldo for understanding my situation.

I would still, more than likely attend my brother’s wedding, if it ever came about, based on many variables that only some of you can understand.

If he asked me to stand beside him and be a legal witness to the wedding that would render greater discernment on my behalf.

I find it interesting on another thread how many catholics are compassionate enough to say “its okay, don’t sever your relationship with the family…It is better to go to an illicit, invalid wedding than to rip the family apart.” Or “It is only by maintaining a relationship that you could be any influence on the family member, so yes, by all means, attend the illicit, invalid wedding”

I feel like busting into the thread and asking the question: "what if this was a gay wedding and not 2 heterosexual people who have not received their annulment. (It is my understanding that 2 divorced people (who have not received annulments) are not free to marry and would be fornicating.

I would just like to see how their opinions would vary.

Everything comes down to a personal decision. We do that in many areas of our life. The church is our guide, but ultimately, the decision is mine to make.

 

[estesbob]

This thread really illustrates the collective “shizophrenia” of our culture, especially our Catholic culture. This idea that we hold these profoundly important beliefs yet we can deconstruct and adapt them to specific situations is a serious problem for all Catholics.

This thread also illustrates a severe lack of understanding of the meaning of marriage. If Catholics are actually considering the secular notion that a gay “marriage” is equal in validity to traditional marriage, then the problem runs much deeper than gay or straight. If Catholics are simply “indulging” this notion of gay marriage for the sake of pleasing their homosexual friends and family, I consider that quite condescending.

It IS confusing for many Catholics to discern EXACTLY where the Church stands on this issue of attending gay “weddings” because so many have put their personal interpretation on the teaching. With Parishes supporting ambiguously defined GBLT clubs, a priesthood scarred by sexual abuse, Bishops waffling on the issue, and fellow Catholics using anecdotal “evidence” to prove both sides of the issue, it’s no wonder there are so many OPINIONS on the matter. But anyone who was raised with even a modicum of Catholic catechesis SHOULD have enough uneasiness about the subject to delve further. And you don’t have to look too far to find the ACTUAL teachings - not the theological spin.

Most of us on this forum have some relationship with homosexual friends and family. Many of us may find ourselves in this situation, struggling with decisions motivated primarily by feelings. I LOVE my sister, who has been with her “partner” for 25 years. Should they ever decide to “marry”, I will be faced with this scenario.

Since my sis knows where I stand on the issue of homosexual behavior, it would seem bizarre for her to want me present. Even with hetero marriage, couples often “univite” family members who don’t approve of their union. Who wants a sourpuss there on the big day? But, if she did invite me, and I went, how could I POSSIBLY be sending a consistent message by participating in something, however indirectly, that I am so clearly not in agreement with? How odd would that be?

It’s important to keep in mind what our homosexual friends and family members are ASKING of us when they invite us to their “weddings”. Especially those who allegedly “know” where we stand - what is the motive? We have only to reflect on the reasons why we ourselves invite loved ones to our celebrations. We are hoping they will join us in acknowledging that something good is happening. Is it that much different for our gay brothers and sisters? In fact, I would argue that this acknowledgement is even more important to them, since it is a new “right” which validates their relationship in the eyes of others.

We have all been in situations where a friend or family member has engaged in undesirable behavior that we can’t support. Do we agonize about losing their love or driving them away from God in these scenarios like we do on the homosexual issues? Why does this topic cause us so much consternation?

If we are ambiguous about the issue of homosexuality, we will be unclear about gay marriage. If we are clear on the former, the latter will cause pain and heartache perhaps, but NOT confusion.

 

[PetersKeys]

You can still be his friend and not goto the wedding. He needs to understand your moral position on this and how important it is to you.

It would be a good time to sit him down and consider what he is doing, and if he is totally sure about this.