E
estesbob
Guest
Jesus NEVER supported sinfullness. In the case of a so called homosexual “wedding” you are in effect taking a ringside seat to watch a grevious sin be commited.
- Status
O
omegabane
Guest
Attending the ceremony would be an implicit support of the union. Again, as I said in an earlier post, it is entirely different to “dine with tax collectors and sinners” than to participate in (or be silently present at) an illicit event. Jesus did not go and stand pleasantly behind the tax collectors while they were extorting people. He did not hang out in the houses of ill repute watching clients come and go. At least I should say that He did not do these things as far as Sacred Scriptures tell us. What He did do was dine with them, socialize with them, and evangelize them through His example.
S
SirOscar
Guest
Yes, there is an obvious difference. To go to a gay wedding is indeed supporting the gay lifestyle.
It just seemed to me that some were under the assumption that they couldn’t have association with gay couples at all., and were having trouble discerning what was taught by the church.
If there was indecent behavior at a family/public function by a heterosexual couple or a gay couple they would be confronted by me in the same manner regardless of their sexual preference.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
Jesus dined with sinners. Attending a wedding is different than a simple dinner I believe. Your presence at a wedding is symbolic of your blessing of the union. When you are present, you are blessing the union. That’s why when a parent does not agree with a wedding, they will not attend.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Thanks for clarifiying. So it is your position that you cannot attend any wedding whenever one of the parties is divorced? And I assume that you no longer frequent their home or invite them to yours for the same reason? It would be condoning their sin as you see it. I have never heard of anyone taking his rigid a stand before. It must be quite difficult for you to lose friends and family who are not Catholic yet are required to abide by Catholic interpretations in order to be your friend. so sorry. It must be quite sad for your children to lose family members, since surely they must be kept from such sinful people. I am truly sorry for your plight.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
You don’t believe that such language is hateful? You can of course at least see why an homosexual would find it so I assume? Is this the manner in which you believe Jesus taught? Is this the way Jesus acted in your opinion? Just what about the homosexual do you love, other than saying the words? There is certainly nothing loving in your manner of speech toward them is there?
A
awfulthings9
Guest
As I’ll explain in my response to Spiritmeadow, I didn’t. They are all based upon real events.
It’s awfulthings9, and the difference is important, but like the artist in scenario #1, I prefer you come up with your own interpretation.
I got to hand it to you, for some reason this got me laughing for like five minutes straight as I thought about your answer later yesterday (I read it just before heading out for our camping trip. Of all the answers I suspected you would give, you truly threw me a curve ball here. “The highest honor”. I just keep picturing these cultural ceremonies where people keep urinating on things as a sign of esteem. I’m laughing now.
The artist would prefer you figure that out yourself.
Yes, but they are part of another performance piece.
One night stand with a guy in a bar. She cooperated fully.
Don’t know. She clams up and refuses to discuss other options.
For the sake of argument, let’s say no, it’s not.
No, for me the correct answer is to continue to counsel her, but to refuse to cooperate or to show support for her murder of an innocent human being.
Nope, but if the only way to win this argument is to put words in my mouth, go ahead.
Lock her up? Nope. Give witness to God’s law and the consequences of her actions, yes. Now, your answer. Would you go with her to the clinic?
So, we can get offended when someone’s actions violate civil law, but if they violate God’s law, eh, whatever. Go support 'em?
A
awfulthings9
Guest
As you almost picked up on, these had very little to do with my imagination, and more to do with loose presentations of actual scenarios. However, as I noticed is your strategy, rather than answer, you attend to demonize me and my imagination.
It was in '89, a crucifix submerged in the artist’s urine. The name of the piece is offensive, so I’ll omit that. But, you stopped short - all three are “take offs”. Polygamous cults have had issues with young brides, and with the number of abortions we have each year, I don’t think scenario #2 is that uncommon at all.
Sure they do. The basic issues here are two. First, either the Church does or does not have the authority to define something as intrinsically evil. Since you questioned, in an earlier post, whether Paul even “got it right”, you are in essense questioning whether the Holy Spirit, who ultimately authored Paul’s epistles can be trusted. How can anyone suppose that you would obey the Church? The second issue is whether we should support those things we see as intrinsically evil. I proposed three scenarios where “loved ones” are doing disagreeable things. Your approach seems to be that we are “supporting the person”, not the action. So, why can you not give an answer as to why that approach would or would not apply here?
Many would. I asked you and Thomfra, though. At least Thomfra answered, albeit with a bit of humor as distraction.
Sure they do, and you failed to explain why they don’t. You are just backing down from the challenge.
Hmm. Since I didn’t call Thomfra “outrageous”, I gues you’re wrong. Anyway, how do you know my intent?
Honestly, you’ve avoided a lot of questions in this thread. I expected the same here. You have an indefensible position and you are presented with a challenge you can’t answer, you resort to avoiding the question or villifying the poster:
They are based on reality, and so is the ugly story of Satan being able to temp two men into a gravely offensive act of sexual rebellion against both natural law and God’s law. However, this is the proof in the pudding that, rather than give me a good explanation of why these scenarios are apples to your oranges, you prefer to try to attack the poster. I’m suprised at how judgemental this response is - you are, after all, doing the very thing you’ve accused others of doing, with is to act as the jury to another person’s actions. The difference is that, while my imagination came up with the “ugly stories”, the two guys at the wedding are acting theirs out.
I’ll ask you again if you would attend in situations one, two, or three. My prediction is that you’ll not only avoid answering again, but you’ll change the subject and launch another attack on my character.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
To you loving means loving the person and the actions. To us, it is possible to love the person without loving the actions. Why do you judge his character? Isn’t that what you were accusing others of doing? You have gravely confused love with tolerance and indulgence. You don’t have to tolerate one’s actions to love him. If my sister goes to parties on Friday night, I will show her my disapproval in some way. I can still love her by disapproving of her actions. In fact, disapproving of some actions is loving…the virtue of fraternal correction.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
Awfulthings9, your responses have been filled with wisdom. I am learning something.
R
rinnie
Guest
Im not sure whats going on here but its nasty, and sick im outta here.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
A
awfulthings9
Guest
That is very nice of you.
W
wanner47
Guest
You are correct in that my family and I will not attend a wedding that we do not believe is valid.
As for frequenting their homes or otherwise socializing, of course we will. See Fr. Serpa’s advice posted earlier in this thread. We just won’t attend any gathering that could be construed as endorsing the invalid marriage (e.g., an anniversary party).
Where did you get the idea that I keep my children from thier family members, or that we don’t associate with non-Catholic family members? I said no such thing. We are all sinners so it would be impossible to keep my kids away from sinful people even if I wanted to – why, we couldn’t even take them to Mass!
But CELEBRATING or otherwise condoning sin is a different matter – which is why we didn’t attend the wedding.
Please don’t pity me. Instead, rejoice and be glad! I love Christ and am so happy to be a part of His one holy apostolic Church.
T
thomfra
Guest
But why woudn’t you do everything you could to stop this event occuring if you feel so stongly about it? You would be saving a life no? Surely her freedom, and your inevitable incarceration would be worth it - to save a life. prevent a “murder” as you say. If she said she was off to murder the neighbour, would you just let her walk out the door???
Doing a no show at the clinic would surley be as good as just washing your hands of the entire problem.
I don’t “get offended” by somebody else violating a law/gods law/civil law. But I would clearly see the child as a victim who could be saved (at least temporarily).
I would not see the gay couple as “one preditor, one victim”. They have made an informed choice. There is a difference. Please tell me you can see that?
E
Exalt
Guest
Jesus would.I am confused. We’re merely talking about whether he should attend the wedding or not.
Thread over.
L
LilyM
Guest
Rubbish. If you spent a lot of time and effort for weeks or months trying to argue, cajole and persuade your daughter into, say, not working as a stripper in a club, and she’s so determined that after all of that she still wants to go, it is in no way ‘washing your hands’ of the problem to signify your disapproval by pointedly NOT accompanying her to said strip club. After all that time and effort she’s hardly going to take it as a sign that you no longer care or have given up, rather she will rightly see it as it is intended, as a final effort on your part to make her think again.
T
thomfra
Guest
Why are you talking about strippers now? What is it with you people and sex???
I’m talking about the sceario of preventing “the murder of a human being” as Herr. Awefulthings9 put it. Mind you this has come a loooooooong way off topic.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
The difference is the road block that civil laws have put up. In the case of the neighbor, I would actively prevend the murder because, by detaining her, I would be following civil laws. She would be tried for attempted murder. The neighbor would hear about it and protect himself. In the case of abortion, which is not viewed legally as a crime, I would be locked up and she would probably get the abortion anyway. I could be wrong, but that’s my reading of the situation. But yes, I would do anything I could within the bounds that I thought would actually be effective. I could be wrong here, but at least I’m not contracting church instructions, which do not declare refusal to kidnap another as cooperation in sin.
No, giving her a ride to the clinic would be as bad as saying, I disaprove, but I’ll help you anyway (so I really don’t disapprove). It would be like walking over to the neighbor with her, saying, “You know, you really shouldn’t do this … oh here, let me get that door.”
I don’t “get offended” by somebody else violating a law/gods law/civil law. But I would clearly see the child as a victim who could be saved (at least temporarily).
Sure there is a difference in the specific offence. Here there are two preditors and one victim. The two preditors, the overt sinners. The one victim: Christ, who has to die upon the cross because of sin, especially overt sin.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
- Status