how do i deal with gay cousin/his boyfriend during Thanksgiving dinner?

[Ridgerunner]

Let us review the initial post:

The initial response, Post #2, by 1ke, has not been improved upon, OP. Do that!

Understanding that OP is apparently going to go, regardless of what anyone here said to the contrary, I agree with you.

 

[Ridgerunner]

. I would always encourage a Mormon to listen to a Catholic when they want advice on things like this, and vice-versa.

It’s not inconceivable that Catholics would do even better to study the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[blaskoman]

If this is an affront to you and you cannot accept this, DO NOT ATTEND, plain and simple.

If this is at your mom’s house she made the invitation list, NOT YOU. If you find it an occasion of sin to be there, DO NOT ATTEND, plain and simple.

Next year, have Thanksgiving at your house, you get to be the host and you get to invite who you want and don’t want to be there, plain and simple.

Sorry for being blunt, but YOU have a choice to make – not your mom, your cousin, not your cousin’s “friend”.

Make your choice and prepare to live with the consequences of other people’s reactions to YOU.

Your stance seems to be more in line with the secular mindset to keep religion in the closet. And to the other Catholic posters who believe it is best to keep quiet–you are not living the faith. We are called to evangelise–pope France s’ words not mine

 

[BlueEyedLady]

It’s not inconceivable that Catholics would do even better to study the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I’m not saying that they should listen to each other over the teachings of their own faith. However, Catholics and Mormons have very similar beliefs and attitudes on things like this and in my experience they are well equipped to provide support and advice to each other. Note, I am talking only about subjective matters like this one where there is no clear cut religious teaching.

I wouldn’t send a Mormon to a Catholic to discuss the Word of Wisdom, nor would I send a Catholic a Mormon’s way if they had questions on the Eucharist.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Your stance seems to be more in line with the secular mindset to keep religion in the closet. And to the other Catholic posters who believe it is best to keep quiet–you are not living the faith. We are called to evangelise–pope France s’ words not mine

See the link I posted earlier on fraternal correction. If you approach this too harshly or at the wrong time and place, you won’t evangelize, you’ll alienate and do more harm than good.

 

[blaskoman]

Not for nothing, but Thanksgiving is still 2 weeks away, and you are worrying about some hypothetical situation that may or may not happen- is that really all you have to do with your time??

If you don’t mind me asking, how old are you?
Do you live in the “real world”? You know, you are going to run into a lot of people and things in this world that do not fit into your “worldview”. Better get used to it and decide which windmills are worth chasing and which ones are not because you are going to end up very tired and very bitter someday.

Yawn… are u really catholic?

 

[MarkInOregon]

How many times have we seen posts here on CAF in which people have lamented that so many Catholics don’t stand up for the teachings of the Church? “You voted for this abortion-promoter; that homosexual marriage proponent. You do not oppose the HHS Mandate. Why? How could you do those things?”

Nothing is mandated in this case, and certainly not the boyfriend’s presence. The cousin’s statement is: “This is my de facto spouse. I will bring him just as you bring your spouse.” Nothing mandated that but the cousin’s simply providing the family with a fait accompli the family did not (as near as one can tell) invite. The boyfriend is there ONLY because the cousin is presenting him as his “spouse”.

By attending, the OP is endorsing the cousin’s relationship with boyfriend as his “spouse”. OP (in the interests of courtesy) is, by seeming consensus here, obliged to say nothing about it at the event, but to pretend to accept something the OP does not accept.

None of us is likely to be called to literal martyrdom. Most will not likely be beheaded by some sultan, bashaw or terrorist for the faith. But there are other, smaller, occasions for all of us to either stand up for our faith and beliefs or to compromise them. Some “denials of faith” may be very difficult to deal with; as for example if our boss is given to unfairness toward fellow workers, or if a government tells us we must purchase abortifacients or be in trouble with the IRS.

When, however, we accept an immorality that is forced upon us ONLY because we feel it is forced upon us by “good manners” or “convention”, we have failed in witnessing for our faith for very insufficient reason. If we are weak in that, we are likely to be weak in everything, and we are telling any children present that even “courtesy” in accepting what is now a societal convention of some 10 or so years duration, is sufficient to make us (or them) back down from taking a moral position. We are yielding the field without so much as a protest.

What I find troubling in your posts is this repeated notion and insistence that we are moral slackers, that we refuse to take a moral stand. That we are yielding without a protest. We’ve told you we’ve made our beliefs known. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this? We’ve told you that we have discussed these beliefs. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this? We have taken our stand. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this? Those beliefs are not shared by some.

Your position seems to be that we are not to associate at all with anyone who doesn’t share our moral beliefs. May I suggest that since America allows abortion, i.e. that it is the law of the land–you renounce your citizenship and move to a country that still outlaws abortion. By remaining an American citizen and continuing to live in this country–you are giving scandal by residing here which implies acceptance of this immoral law. For by your apparent standard the fact that you may have made your position against abortion known–that is not enough–you must remove yourself from the situation or you are giving tacit approval.

St Paul in First Corinthians writes, “I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, not at all referring to the immoral of the world or the greedy and robbers or idolators; for you would have to leave the world. But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolator, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within? God will judge those outside.” The truth is many of our family members are outside. It is within the Church community where we cannot tolerate the immoral behavior and share the meal. That is where the scandal is given.

To move about in and interact with those of the world is not a denial of our faith and does not imply acceptance of the immorality of the world. If it does then many saints are guilty.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m not saying that they should listen to each other over the teachings of their own faith. However, Catholics and Mormons have very similar beliefs and attitudes on things like this and in my experience they are well equipped to provide support and advice to each other. Note, I am talking only about subjective matters like this one where there is no clear cut religious teaching.

I wouldn’t send a Mormon to a Catholic to discuss the Word of Wisdom, nor would I send a Catholic a Mormon’s way if they had questions on the Eucharist.

I wouldn’t necessarily send a Catholic to another Catholic for advice on family matters, let alone to a Mormon that was “picked out of a hat”, so to speak. I would also not assume that “they are well equipped to provide support and advice to each other”, particularly on subjective matters, just because they belong to denominations with similar official stances on this subject. Pastoral counseling is not something that everyone is good at, let’s just say that.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Your stance seems to be more in line with the secular mindset to keep religion in the closet. And to the other Catholic posters who believe it is best to keep quiet–you are not living the faith. We are called to evangelise–pope France s’ words not mine

RE: the bolded…

And that, my friend is NOT your call to make!

Also Francis’ words-

Without humility, without the ability to publicly acknowledge your sins and your own human frailty, you cannot attain salvation nor proclaim Christ, nor pretend to be his witness.

You are free to do as you choose. Only you and God know what is in your heart. I only wish you would give all others the benefit of the doubt, especially during Thanksgiving dinner at someone else’s home.

Yes, we are all called to evangelize, and sometimes the best way to do that is without words.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I wouldn’t necessarily send a Catholic to another Catholic for advice on family matters, let alone to a Mormon that was “picked out of a hat”, so to speak. I would also not assume that “they are well equipped to provide support and advice to each other”, particularly on subjective matters, just because they belong to denominations with similar official stances on this subject. Pastoral counseling is not something that everyone is good at, let’s just say that.

Obviously I didn’t mean that I would blindly send a Mormon to a Catholic regardless of the situation or people involved because, what they hell, they’re similar enough, right?

But if I had a calm, wise, patient, kind, loving, devout, Mormon friend (and I do), and I had a similar Catholic friend, I would have no problem referring them to each other. Their worldviews and morals would be similar, so would the struggle to reconcile the world with their religious beliefs.

But if my original offhand comment is this contentious, let’s just leave it alone.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Your stance seems to be more in line with the secular mindset to keep religion in the closet. And to the other Catholic posters who believe it is best to keep quiet–you are not living the faith. We are called to evangelise–pope France s’ words not mine

The question is what is the best way to evangelize? What does it mean to evangelize? Is it proclaiming the kingdom of God?, is it preaching Christ crucified?, is it boycotting Thanksgiving dinner or confronting only one particular sinner at the dinner?, is it reaching out to sinners with the message of Christs love and sacrifice and mercy?, is it standing up at every opportunity and condemning sinners? What does Pope Francis’ approach seem to be? The Vatican website has a series of reflections on his homilies–perhaps spending some time reading through and meditating on those would be of help to you.

I don’t think anyone here has suggested that you or we keep our religion in the closet. Has it been suggested that you don’t offer grace at the meal? Has it been suggested that you don’t defend your faith if it is attacked? What has been suggested is that you don’t confront you cousin at the Thanksgiving dinner table–that’s not keeping your religion in the closet. I assume you faith and beliefs are well know to your family are they not? You need to live a good Christian witness – I guess it is up to you to decide if boycotting the dinner or confronting your cousin are examples of good Christian witness to Christ. Perhaps you could consult with your priest or spiritual director, if you have one, on the matter. Above all pray and ask for guidance on the matter.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

Let’s see. The OP is Catholic. We know that. We know the OP does not approve of the relationship. We know that too. We know cousin brought boyfriend and announced it was their “anniversary”. We know OP is discomfited by it. We can reasonably believe at least substantial numbers of the family are Catholic, and know cousin was or is or sort of is, but no longer goes to Mass.

We know those things. But we are not allowed to conclude that cousin is “flaunting” his relationship when he brings boyfriend to a family dinner and announces that it’s their “anniversary”? What more would he have to do to “flaunt” it?

We are free to conclude whatever we want, but this is an uncharitable conclusion. He is making a statement of fact–apparently one year has passed since he entered into this immoral relationship. Could he not simply want to see his parents and be bringing someone he cares about? I am sure he hopes for acceptance of the relationship at some point but the accusation of flaunting assumes something uncharitable. I am not sure attending a family dinner necessarily rises to the level of “flaunting”–it could but I would need more information before I jumped to that conclusion and accusation.

And what alternatives did the relatives have in the situation? They had three. Get up and leave, protest, or say nothing. What do you think, at a family dinner, he expected, including of the OP?

There is a fourth option–they could all offer congratulations–which is probably what the cousin would have liked or hoped for–though it’s not really an option for anyone actually practicing and subscribing to the beliefs of our faith. The silence at the table alone shows the disapproval and non-acceptance of the relationship. Only if they offer their congratulations or something similar is approval or acceptance shown. Deafening silence or the stumbled “oh” in this situation clearly shows a shock and disapproval–not acceptance as you seem to think it does.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[coachdennis]

Your stance seems to be more in line with the secular mindset to keep religion in the closet. And to the other Catholic posters who believe it is best to keep quiet–you are not living the faith. We are called to evangelise–pope France s’ words not mine

OK so now that you asked for feedback – and received it and you disagree with it – you now accuse people of not living their faith.

Well, if you are SO SURE IN YOUR FAITH AND WHAT TO DO, why did you ask for feedback?

 

[Ridgerunner]

What I find troubling in your posts is this repeated notion and insistence that we are moral slackers, that we refuse to take a moral stand. That we are yielding without a protest. We’ve told you we’ve made our beliefs known. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this? We’ve told you that we have discussed these beliefs. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this? We have taken our stand. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this? Those beliefs are not shared by some.

Your position seems to be that we are not to associate at all with anyone who doesn’t share our moral beliefs. May I suggest that since America allows abortion, i.e. that it is the law of the land–you renounce your citizenship and move to a country that still outlaws abortion. By remaining an American citizen and continuing to live in this country–you are giving scandal by residing here which implies acceptance of this immoral law. For by your apparent standard the fact that you may have made your position against abortion known–that is not enough–you must remove yourself from the situation or you are giving tacit approval.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

If one soldier in battle exhorts his fellows to brave the bullets and go “over the top”, this implies no negative judgment of the soldiers within earshot. And if he tells them that “some other (unidentified) soldiers” could be criticized for not going over the top, there no demerit in saying that if it’s true.

Many is the time when I have seen, here on CAF, criticism of Catholics who “went along to get along” with the secular, and sometimes frankly pagan, mores of this society. Sometimes, but not always, I agree with that criticism. If you were perhaps more familiar with my posts, you would know that I am sometimes the “contrarian” when it comes to such things. I might be more tolerant of human weakness than you seem to think I am.

And I respectfully decline your invitation to leave the country. Nothing personal in that, you understand. I simply do not wish to comply. I am, however, put to mind by the invitation of something President Truman once said. Someone congratulated him for “giving the Republicans hell”. Truman replied: (and I’m likely paraphrasing) “No. I don’t give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it’s hell.”

Some on here have chosen to take personally that which is nothing but a statement of principle based on the facts as we know them. They shouldn’t.

And so, if I say something that, to the best of my knowledge and understanding, represents what the Church teaches (and I’m still thinking of that thing about the millstone when it comes to children present), I’m simply saying what I think is the truth of the matter. I think you mistake my point. I have never said anyone should refuse to associate with anyone. While I think some associations are, of their nature, morally perilous, I have never said that simply associating with cousin, himself, would somehow be so. Nowhere near enough facts about cousin have been given here to provide a foundation for that.

But doesn’t the Church teach that we are not justified in condemning a person just because he’s homosexual, but that we are justified in condemning homosexual acts and scandal arising therefrom? If I’m wrong about that, you are free to cite from the Catechism or wherever, where it says I am.

You don’t agree with what I truly said, or perhaps what you only think I said. Fine. But it is not me who is assigning moral fault to you or to anyone else in this thread. Look back at the threads and see who has been directly judgmental of others on here.

 

[MarkInOregon]

By attending, the OP is endorsing the cousin’s relationship with boyfriend as his “spouse”. OP (in the interests of courtesy) is, by seeming consensus here, obliged to say nothing about it at the event, but to pretend to accept something the OP does not accept.

Sorry to reply to this post again but perhaps if we focus on this one item it will help me to understand your position on this. I’d like to ask you to elaborate on this idea that by attending a Thanksgiving dinner at his parents house the OP is endorsing the lifestyle of one of the other invited guests. I’d like you to explain how his attendance endorses anything other than the Thanksgiving holiday. I’d like to see your reasoning on this.

This isn’t a gathering to celebrate the cousins “anniversary” or the cousins “engagement” or the cousins “marriage”. I can see how those gathering would be problematic to attend–as attendance of those gatherings would, in my opinion, suggest acceptance.

It may be that I am just thick–so help me understand. If I attend the opening of an art exhibit and a gay couple shows up–do I need to leave? Does my staying endorse their lifestyle? If I’m eating in a restaurant and a gay couple comes in --do I need to leave? Does my eating at that restaurant endorse the gay life style?

If I have discussed the relationship with my relative in the past and they don’t change–am I obligated, in your understanding, to either avoid my relative or bring up the relationship everytime I see them? Do you really think that if my relative knows my thoughts on the matter–that he thinks I’m endorsing his or hers relationship if I fail to bring it up each time I see them at a family gathering–that I am pretending to accept it? I am having a hard time following this line of reasoning. Sorry to trouble you but I would like to understand the thought process here.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Ridgerunner]

We are free to conclude whatever we want, but this is an uncharitable conclusion. He is making a statement of fact–apparently one year has passed since he entered into this immoral relationship. Could he not simply want to see his parents and be bringing someone he cares about? I am sure he hopes for acceptance of the relationship at some point but the accusation of flaunting assumes something uncharitable. I am not sure attending a family dinner necessarily rises to the level of “flaunting”–it could but I would need more information before I jumped to that conclusion and accusation.

There is a fourth option–they could all offer congratulations–which is probably what the cousin would have liked or hoped for–though it’s not really an option for anyone actually practicing and subscribing to the beliefs of our faith. The silence at the table alone shows the disapproval and non-acceptance of the relationship. Only if they offer their congratulations or something similar is approval or acceptance shown. Deafening silence or the stumbled “oh” in this situation clearly shows a shock and disapproval–not acceptance as you seem to think it does.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

You don’t like the word “flaunting” in this context. Very well, then, how about “making a demonstrative utterance the only reasonable inference of which would be his ongoing and continuing engagement in a homosexual relationship”? Does that work better?

Perhaps you think cousin lost the point by the silence and lack of congratulation. I think the silence indicates that he won it. Perhaps a whole tableful of people who perhaps thought it an abomination felt themsleves silenced due to the circumstance of the family dinner. I think OP’s recitation of the fact pattern supports that, but I suppose OP can correct that inference if OP chooses to do so.

I suppose there can be differences of opinion in what reasonable inferences might be drawn from silence one would prefer not to observe.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Many is the time when I have seen, here on CAF, criticism of Catholics who “went along to get along” with the secular, and sometimes frankly pagan, mores of this society. Sometimes, but not always, I agree with that criticism. If you were perhaps more familiar with my posts, you would know that I am sometimes the “contrarian” when it comes to such things. I might be more tolerant of human weakness than you seem to think I am.

And I respectfully decline your invitation to leave the country. Nothing personal in that, you understand. I simply do not wish to comply. I am, however, put to mind by the invitation of something President Truman once said. Someone congratulated him for “giving the Republicans hell”. Truman replied: (and I’m likely paraphrasing) “No. I don’t give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it’s hell.”

I hope you know that the invitation to leave the country was not a serious one, but was only intended to be illustrative. If that was not obvious I apologize. It may well be that we are misundering what each other is saying–I don’t know.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[EasterJoy]

…Perhaps you think cousin lost the point by the silence and lack of congratulation. I think the silence indicates that he won it…

No way did he “win”. He got neither the congratulations he might have been fishing for nor the pretext to have it out with someone on the topic. It is like having a bill go to Congress and die without ever being introduced. No, all he got was the knowledge that if he wants out of this family, he’s going to have to leave. He will not get the false martyrdom of having been “rejected as a person”, nor the real hurt he’d feel if he actually were rejected as a person. If he was testing the water simply to see if there would be any approval of what he’s doing, he got his answer. It isn’t going to happen.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Sorry to reply to this post again but perhaps if we focus on this one item it will help me to understand your position on this. I’d like to ask you to elaborate on this idea that by attending a Thanksgiving dinner at his parents house the OP is endorsing the lifestyle of one of the other invited guests. I’d like you to explain how his attendance endorses anything other than the Thanksgiving holiday. I’d like to see your reasoning on this.

This isn’t a gathering to celebrate the cousins “anniversary” or the cousins “engagement” or the cousins “marriage”. I can see how those gathering would be problematic to attend–as attendance of those gatherings would, in my opinion, suggest acceptance.

It may be that I am just thick–so help me understand. If I attend the opening of an art exhibit and a gay couple shows up–do I need to leave? Does my staying endorse their lifestyle? If I’m eating in a restaurant and a gay couple comes in --do I need to leave? Does my eating at that restaurant endorse the gay life style?

If I have discussed the relationship with my relative in the past and they don’t change–am I obligated, in your understanding, to either avoid my relative or bring up the relationship everytime I see them? Do you really think that if my relative knows my thoughts on the matter–that he thinks I’m endorsing his or hers relationship if I fail to bring it up each time I see them at a family gathering–that I am pretending to accept it? I am having a hard time following this line of reasoning. Sorry to trouble you but I would like to understand the thought process here.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

I think I largely answered this in my last post. If you think I didn’t let me know in what way I didn’t.

Comparing analogies can not only be endless, but does not give us a clear enunciation of principle. So, suffice it to say that if my presence at something endorses or appears to endorse something evil, then I am morally obliged to avoid being present if I cannot somehow change the circumstance. And most definitely I am morally obligated not to subject children to it.

For the most part, simply being in a public place where my presence does not give rise to an inference of my approval of some evil, does not obligate me to avoid that place, though I might be morally at fault if that presence somehow tempts me to evil and most definitely I would be at fault if I bring children to it.

In the OP’s situation, as I understand it, there’s more to it than simply “being in a place” where someone who is in an immoral relationship is also present. Cousin is not there by himself. He has brought his paramour into a family context which, I think it’s reasonable to infer, does not otherwise require an acceptance of something immoral. OP’s situation reasonably suggests that cousin makes it clear that he is in an immoral relationship with a person present and intends to continue in it. The circumstance is such that those present feel constrained, due the nature of the occasion and those present, to silence about it, notwithstanding their disapproval of it, thus requiring of them an unwilling, tacit acceptance of it.

I think if cousin did not bring boyfriend, but announced at table “oh, I’m having a delightful affair with cousin Suzie down at the end of the table, and we’re still going to be doing it next Thanksgiving too” and if it was believable, reactions on this thread would be much different. So would it likely be even if cousin insisted on spreading the “N” word and the “C” words around with abandon at table. If people thought he would repeat the performance next Thanksgiving, likely few would show up, and rightly so. It would be (and should be) particularly true of people who customarily brought children to the dinner.

I sometimes think the current, very intense, societal sanctioning of homosexual relationships sometimes blinds us to what our moral choices are. We have become accustomed to the idea that we have to freeze in the face of certain moral evils, though not in others, and all by societal diktat, not by anything the Church teaches. It is my position that we actually don’t have to, and certainly not in the circumstance described by the OP.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No way did he “win”. He got neither the congratulations he might have been fishing for nor the pretext to have it out with someone on the topic. It is like having a bill go to Congress and die without ever being introduced. No, all he got was the knowledge that if he wants out of this family, he’s going to have to leave. He will not get the false martyrdom of having been “rejected as a person”, nor the real hurt he’d feel if he actually were rejected as a person. If he was testing the water simply to see if there would be any approval of what he’s doing, he got his answer. It isn’t going to happen.

He shut some Catholic mouths, and has made at least some feel they must subject themselves (perhaps also children) to it again, when they really don’t have to. He might not have won everything, but he won that much.