How to Respond Gracefully - Gay Friend Getting Married

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I think the problem is that you think it’s ok and so would a few posters but most don’t. It seems that people have to…make up their own minds (the horror!).

If nothing else, this thread has indicated that life is not black and white and people interpret what the church teaches in ways that align with their personal feelings.

I say full marks to the op for trying to maintain her friendship whilst being true to what she believes (even though I think it’s nonsensical that she is taught that she shouldn’t). But you only have to vary the situation slightly from attending a marriage, which is a celebration of the commitment of two people, to attending an anniversary, which is…um…a celebration of the commitment of two people to get two different opinions.

People argue all day and well into the evening about morality being absolute and not relative. But ask virtually the same question in two different ways and you get two different answers.

Yes, people can and do differ in how they evaluate concrete moral situations — what is called casuistry. We can make up our own minds, or if in doubt, we can call upon a priest or spiritual director.

Isn’t that just kicking the can down the road? If you were a spiritual director and Veritas another then someone would get a different answer depending on whether they spoke to you or Veritas.

And if you can make up your own mind (which seems pretty obviously a Very Good Idea to me) then who is to say that the answer you reach is the wrong one? It’s the right one for you (relativism - more horror!).

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Yes, people can and do differ in how they evaluate concrete moral situations — what is called casuistry . We can make up our own minds, or if in doubt, we can call upon a priest or spiritual director.

Isn’t that just kicking the can down the road? If you were a spiritual director and Veritas another then someone would get a different answer depending on whether they spoke to you or Veritas.

And if you can make up your own mind (which seems pretty obviously a Very Good Idea to me) then who is to say that the answer you reach is the wrong one? It’s the right one for you (relativism - more horror!).

We can only give it our best shot, when making moral decisions where there is some kind of ambiguity, where it is not crystal-clear that Church teaching would permit X, forbid X, or be neutral on X. I think Our Blessed Lord will be rich in mercy if we do not, in fact, make the absolute best decision about X as seen in retrospect, despite our best efforts. The Church does not expect her faithful never to make mistakes. Even the USCCB doesn’t prescribe black-and-white, one-size-fits-all answers for the moral dilemmas we see in this thread (attendance at either gay or illicit “straight” weddings). “Making up one’s own mind”, as long as the agent is being faithful to Catholic teaching, is not a dirty word, in fact, it is, as you point out, a “Very Good Idea”.

 

[Freddy]

“Making up one’s own mind”, as long as the agent is being faithful to Catholic teaching, is not a dirty word, in fact, it is, as you point out, a “Very Good Idea”.

I don’t want to harp on this point, but…

If you have two people honestly come to diametrically opposed views on (say) attending a gay marriage, then either one is right and the other wrong (in which case how do we tell) or it’s right for both of them. Hence relativism, which is anathema to the church.

 

[otjm]

Sorry, I’m not seeing any “not accepting the Church’s teachings” here. Sin, yes. Failure to accept the Church’s teaching, no. People sin every day of their lives, without denying that what they are doing is sinful.

As I noted, My original comment was not strictly limited to doctrinal disagreements. People have separated from the Church over doctrinal disagreements; they have also separated from the Church over moral disagreements. Being separated from the Church is just that; the path one chooses to walk which separates still leaves one separated.

The church I go to embraces LGBTQ, as do I. Your response is why young people don’t want anything to do with Christianity. So sad that people are so self righteous. I know all of your arguments and talking points

This was the comment to which I originally made my comment. I am not interested in whether the poster was saying that they (and supposedly their parish) openly accepted gay marriage, or refused to make a decision for or against gay marriage, or if they were making a generic comment about accepting people with SSA whether or not that group married. It goes against the teaching of the Magisterium that there is any such think as “gay marriage”. I don’t wish to take the poster’s comment further as to exactly how wide the distance is between the Magisterium and the attitude(s) of the parish, to sort out whether it is heresy or a disagreement with the moral teachings. And as an aside, scholarship appears to indicate that Gnosticism was a develop[ed or semi-developed matter before Christ appeared, and that shortly thereafter (which as I noted goes back to the time of the Apostles) started to mix with Christian beliefs, with writings appearing in the second century; so it would have been “floating around” during the lifetime opf the Apostles; so there is the formulations of the heresy as mixed with Christianity.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

“Making up one’s own mind”, as long as the agent is being faithful to Catholic teaching, is not a dirty word, in fact, it is, as you point out, a “Very Good Idea”.

I don’t want to harp on this point, but…

If you have two people honestly come to diametrically opposed views on (say) attending a gay marriage, then either one is right and the other wrong (in which case how do we tell) or it’s right for both of them. Hence relativism, which is anathema to the church.

That is not relativism. Two people, each with the “facts on the ground” in front of them, weigh these facts, and then make a decision. Neither one is necessarily “right” or “wrong”. Even moral theologians come to different conclusions — usually with some nuance of thought, so that it is not as simple as saying “you can do X, always, no matter what” or “you cannot do X, never, no matter what”.

It is not intrinsically evil to be physically present in a place where a sacrilege or an abomination is taking place. Otherwise, for instance, if someone at the ceremony fell dead of a heart attack, the EMTs could not come and get that person without sinning, for “coming and getting that person” would require their physical presence. Of course they can. It would actually be evil for them not to come, to say “we’re not going into that place and rendering aid”. First responders went to the Pulse nightclub in Orlando and rendered aid, as they should have done. No doubt some of these first responders were faithful orthodox Christians of various denominations. Chick-fil-a even prepared and donated food for the responders, mirabile dictu, on Sunday! (Note to readers outside the US: Chick-fil-a is owned by evangelical Christians and they close on Sundays. They are a wildly popular chicken fast-food restaurant chain.)

Okay, move forward from there. Abel is “marrying” Baker. Abel’s father is invited. He tells Abel “I cannot do that”. Abel says “okay, but if you don’t come, you’ll never see your grandchildren again”. (Abel has children from a previous heterosexual relationship.) Abel’s father says “well, that’s pretty dirty, but if that’s the situation, then may I come and sit on the back row?”. Abel says “that’s not being very supportive of Baker and me, but at least you’ll be there”. Abel’s father says “and will I then get to see my grandbabies?”. Abel says “sure”. Has Abel’s father sinned? I don’t think so.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Figuratively speaking, Abel’s father has a gun to his head. In no way is Abel’s father condoning the “marriage” of Abel and Baker. Abel knows this, and surely he will tell Baker. Does Abel’s father have the obligation to go around and tell all of the guests “I don’t support this ‘marriage’, I have a very personal reason for being here”? I don’t think so. The less said, the better. Family harmony, or what’s left of it in this case, is more important than avoiding scandal. We are not obliged to avoid scandal at all costs. Sometimes scandal is taken, and nothing can be done about it. Does it not fall upon the other guests to give Abel’s father the benefit of the doubt, and say to themselves “everybody knows what a faithful Catholic Abel’s father is, and we didn’t expect him to show up, but here he is, and his reasons for being here may be very personal, and something we don’t need to be thinking about”? We’re always being told “not to judge, not to judge”. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

I tell this story to demonstrate how there can be nuance, and excusing cause, that would permit something that, at first blush, one would think cannot be permitted. I think it was scenarios such as this one, that the US Catholic bishops had in mind. Again, that’s far from being relativism.

 

[AlNg]

Despite being a Catholic, I don’t have anything against gay marriage.

Do you believe that the Bible condemns homosexual relations?
Should that be taken seriously?
Anyway, I know one Catholic college that congratulates its alumni and/or alumnae upon their entering a SS marriage.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

HomeschoolDad:

“Making up one’s own mind”, as long as the agent is being faithful to Catholic teaching, is not a dirty word, in fact, it is, as you point out, a “Very Good Idea”.

I don’t want to harp on this point, but…

If you have two people honestly come to diametrically opposed views on (say) attending a gay marriage, then either one is right and the other wrong (in which case how do we tell) or it’s right for both of them. Hence relativism, which is anathema to the church.

That is not relativism. Two people, each with the “facts on the ground” in front of them, weigh these facts, and then make a decision. Neither one is necessarily “right” or “wrong”.

But they are making a decision based on their personal viewpoints. That surely is the very definition of moral relativism:

Relativism is the idea that views are relative to differences in perception and consideration. There are a variety of different interpretations of the concept.[1] The major categories of relativism vary in their degree of scope and controversy.[2] Moral relativism encompasses the differences in moral judgments among people and cultures

John Paul II:

there is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. Such an outlook is quite congenial to an individualist ethic, wherein each individual is faced with his own truth, different from the truth of others. Taken to its extreme consequences, this individualism leads to a denial of the very idea of human nature.

When freedom, out of a desire to emancipate itself from all forms of tradition and authority, shuts out even the most obvious evidence of an objective and universal truth, which is the foundation of personal and social life, then the person ends up by no longer taking as the sole and indisputable point of reference for his own choices the truth about good and evil, but only his subjective and changeable opinion or, indeed, his selfish interest and whim.

All from: Relativism - Wikipedia

 

[sorrowful1]

Condemned or not, I think it’s quite impossible to adhere to everything that the Bible or the Scripture says us to. And one such is same sex marriage. One poster here clarified me about why it’s condemned and I agree with him/her. But to be practical, I just can’t isolate myself from LGBTQ people just because the Bible denies gay marriage. I will refrain from committing one myself but I’d go to theirs (marriage) , definitely.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

That is not relativism. Two people, each with the “facts on the ground” in front of them, weigh these facts, and then make a decision. Neither one is necessarily “right” or “wrong”.

But they are making a decision based on their personal viewpoints. That surely is the very definition of moral relativism:

Relativism is the idea that views are relative to differences in perception and consideration. There are a variety of different interpretations of the concept.[1] The major categories of relativism vary in their degree of scope and controversy.[2] Moral relativism encompasses the differences in moral judgments among people and cultures

John Paul II:

there is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. Such an outlook is quite congenial to an individualist ethic, wherein each individual is faced with his own truth, different from the truth of others. …

When freedom, out of a desire to emancipate itself from all forms of tradition and authority, shuts out even the most obvious evidence of an objective and universal truth, which is the foundation of personal and social life, then the person ends up by no longer taking as the sole and indisputable point of reference for his own choices the truth about good and evil, but only his subjective and changeable opinion or, indeed, his selfish interest and whim.

All from: Relativism - Wikipedia

I hear what you are saying, but I do not equate casuistry with relativism. Simply put, casuistry says something like “we have principles of Catholic moral theology, and clear teachings on XYZ, but every case must be considered on its merits, with all the attendant circumstances, and there is not necessarily a ‘one size fits all’ way to apply XYZ”. Relativism would deny that these principles are true, and relativism would deny that those teachings are true. Casuistry does neither.

An amusing way to illustrate casuistry is this: once upon a time, a man asked his confessor if he could smoke while he was praying. The confessor asked him “well, do you think you can pray while you are smoking?”. There the man had his answer.

The casuist would start off as I did about attending the gay wedding — “first question is, is it intrinsically evil to be physically present at a place where a sacrilege or abomination is taking place?”. I demonstrated above that it is not. Then you work forward from there, with the facts at hand. Different people, with different reasons to be there, will come up with different answers. That’s not relativism. Different people, with the same reasons for being there, may come up with different answers. That’s not relativism either.

 

[AngelusDomini]

Sorry, I cannot attend.
That’s all you need to say.

 

[Freddy]

The casuist would start off as I did about attending the gay wedding — “first question is, is it intrinsically evil to be physically present at a place where a sacrilege or abomination is taking place?”. I demonstrated above that it is not. Then you work forward from there, with the facts at hand. Different people, with different reasons to be there, will come up with different answers. That’s not relativism. Different people, with the same reasons for being there, may come up with different answers. That’s not relativism either.

I can see there’d be no problem in calling some decision relativism if the decision went against the church’s teaching. But that the problem is more nuanced doesn’t alter the fact that some consider the call to be morally wrong whilst others would claim it is morally right. By that very fact we are in the realm of relativism by any generally accepted definition of the term.

It’s the very reason for attendence is the problem. Some say it’s a celebration of immorality and some say it’s not. Can they both be right?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

The casuist would start off as I did about attending the gay wedding — “first question is, is it intrinsically evil to be physically present at a place where a sacrilege or abomination is taking place?” . I demonstrated above that it is not. Then you work forward from there, with the facts at hand. Different people, with different reasons to be there, will come up with different answers. That’s not relativism. Different people, with the same reasons for being there, may come up with different answers. That’s not relativism either.

I can see there’d be no problem in calling some decision relativism if the decision went against the church’s teaching. But that the problem is more nuanced doesn’t alter the fact that some consider the call to be morally wrong whilst others would claim it is morally right. By that very fact we are in the realm of relativism by any generally accepted definition of the term.

It’s the very reason for attendence is the problem. Some say it’s a celebration of immorality and some say it’s not. Can they both be right?

If it were identical people in absolutely identical situations, with absolutely identical reasons, no, they could not both be right. Vary any of those factors just a hair’s breadth, and yes, they could be.

That being the case, this might be a kind of relativism that the Church does not condemn. If casuistry is a form of relativism — and I do not think it is, but just granting and not conceding — then the Church doesn’t condemn it.

This is really getting more into semantics than anything else. We may just be talking in circles at this point.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

HomeschoolDad:

The casuist would start off as I did about attending the gay wedding — “first question is, is it intrinsically evil to be physically present at a place where a sacrilege or abomination is taking place?” . I demonstrated above that it is not. Then you work forward from there, with the facts at hand. Different people, with different reasons to be there, will come up with different answers. That’s not relativism. Different people, with the same reasons for being there, may come up with different answers. That’s not relativism either.

I can see there’d be no problem in calling some decision relativism if the decision went against the church’s teaching. But that the problem is more nuanced doesn’t alter the fact that some consider the call to be morally wrong whilst others would claim it is morally right. By that very fact we are in the realm of relativism by any generally accepted definition of the term.

It’s the very reason for attendence is the problem. Some say it’s a celebration of immorality and some say it’s not. Can they both be right?

If it were identical people in absolutely identical situations, with absolutely identical reasons, no, they could not both be right. Vary any of those factors just a hair’s breadth, and yes, they could be.

That being the case, this might be a kind of relativism that the Church does not condemn. If casuistry is a form of relativism — and I do not think it is, but just granting and not conceding — then the Church doesn’t condemn it.

This is really getting more into semantics than anything else. We may just be talking in circles at this point.

Agreed. Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[John10]

We only have to remember Jesus example, he never “My friends know that I am a devout Catholic, but I think they may expect me to put my beliefs aside in the name of friendship”

He actually had a lot of enemies because he remained faithful to the doctrine and beliefs he taught.

Remember spiritually speaking we are always either advancing or retreating, there is no neutral area.

God Bless

 

[AlNg]

I just can’t isolate myself from LGBTQ people just because the Bible denies gay marriage.

I know what you mean.

 

[Thorolfr]

being at the wedding would mean I am celebrating and being witness to what I believe is wrong, destructive, and ultimately a path to unhappiness.

We all have our own beliefs about what is right and wrong, but how can we know what is going to make someone else happy or unhappy? I doubt that marrying someone of the opposite sex is going to make a gay man or a lesbian happy. And remaining single and celibate is unlikely to be a source of happiness either. But what do I know about what makes someone else happy. Maybe some people are happy being married to another person to whom they are not sexually attracted. And maybe some people are happy living alone and not being in an intimate relationship for their entire life.

 

[jeannetherese]

In our increasingly secular world, the pursuit of happiness may sometimes be conflated with that which is right.
Of course, what brings happiness to one, may well involve causing misery to others.
To argue that one should pursue whatever makes one happy risks neglecting the fact that we live in community and what we choose to do will have effects on others.

 

[TheLittleLady]

If it were her birthday or graduation or anything that actually celebrated her, or her partner for that matter, I wouldn’t have a problem going. But this is an event celebrating their relationship and the sin they are committing, and it’s not something I can be a part of.

And that is your choice. The ramifications of our actions are part of making that choice.

If this were as monumentally a problem as some feel it to be, the Catechism would be updated to reflect a ban they way the teaching on the death penalty has been broadened. Right now, the Church universal does not see accepting invites to weddings as a cut and dry teaching.

 

[jeannetherese]

Mightn’t it fall under bearing false witness?
The church universal doesn’t give us a laundry list of specific situations, but it does give us the commandments and challenge us to consider our actions in their light.