Implicit Endorsement of "Homosexual Marriage"?

[Allegra]

I think you are being scrupulous. You don’t have to endorse their personal lives in order to thank them for being donors. There is nothing wrong with honoring a person for doing something good. Just don’t endorse the sinful things they are doing. It seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Augustine]

It makes sense. Thanks for your patience.

Pax Christi

 

[Augustine]

This is where people start calling us bigots because both examples aren’t condoned by the church, but only one of them do people refuse to even acknowledge the good they do.

Please, don’t put words in my mouth.

Pax Christi

 

[mdgspencer]

I would write as if they were separate individuals, without speaking of their gay relationship. Simply doing this is no problem. I just looked in the “New Catholic Encyclopedia” and see articles have been written and published there on reprehensible individuals, such as Mussolini–and on worse people.
I think you could thank them for the gift too, since, after all, this is just speaking about the truth.

 

[808Catholic]

Hi all,

So, at my workplace I am being asked to write a profile (for publication) of two donors who have contributed generously to our organization. The issue is that they are gay “spouses”, and the money comes from their shared marital funds. I worry that in writing about this gift I will be endorsing their shared possession of money through “gay marriage”. Am I being scrupulous? On the other hand, I have also considered that this might be irrelevant, and that all that I need to be concerned with is that the two men are mutually making a generous gift. This is consistent with the possibility that they are making the joint gift as friends. And maybe this is true even if they are gay partners.

In any case, the issue keeps bothering me. Any insight or advice will be much appreciated.

I need to turn in a draft very soon, so I would be especially thankful for timely replies.

Thank you,

Sapling

Have you ever written an article concerning other sinners? You probably have. You are not endorsing their SSA or “marriage”; you are writing an article. I take it their generosity is the focus and not their sexual preference so do your best and pray for them privately. Have a Blessed Holy Week!!!

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Please, don’t put words in my mouth.

Pax Christi

I didn’t.

 

[Rau]

Thanks to all for the very helpful discussion and replies. I am strongly leaning towards thinking that it is acceptable for me to go forward with the article at this point.

My worry was not that it is wrong to honor public sinners, since, as others have noticed above, a public sinner can be honored in respect of something good that he or she has done. My worry was that in endorsing the gift I would be implicitly endorsing the “couple’s” “gay marriage”, because the gift comes from their shared “marital funds”. But thanks to the helpful replies given above I am now inclined to think that I was over- stressing this point.

I really appreciate this forum very much! God bless.

Are you really going to refer to their shared “marital funds”, or are you just going to say they have made a joint donation of $X ?

The difficulty you may face is the extent of profile information you will be expected to write, combined with the typically effusive tone the article may be expected to exhibit. You may find yourself having to address their personal status in a matter of fact way - that is, in a manner which accepts it as entirely normal. That may cause you angst. Of course, were you writing something far shorter (a paragraph or so), you could readily avoid that topic.

 

[kozlosap]

How is their attempted marriage any different from a remarried Catholic? Both aren’t recognized by the church, both are sinful. But it’s OK for Mr. and Mrs. Jones to be recognized, but not Mr. and Mr. Smith? Both attempts at marriage are a public matter.

This is where people start calling us bigots because both examples aren’t condoned by the church, but only one of them do people refuse to even acknowledge the good they do.

EXACTLY! You have my permission to put those very , very true words in my mouth anytime !

 

[clem456]

I would just write the article in a business-like fashion.
From what you tell us here, you are not being asked to discuss or endorse an issue.
If the nature of their partnership is not the issue, don’t make it one.
Just discuss the subject matter.
Be practical.

 

[Rau]

How is their attempted marriage any different from a remarried Catholic? Both aren’t recognized by the church, both are sinful. But it’s OK for Mr. and Mrs. Jones to be recognized, but not Mr. and Mr. Smith? Both attempts at marriage are a public matter.

This is where people start calling us bigots because both examples aren’t condoned by the church, but only one of them do people refuse to even acknowledge the good they do.

There is no issue in recognizing the donation - it comes from what we presume to be the properly obtained financial resources of two people, not the proceeds of crime! But the marriage of a man and woman is in general accepted as valid unless shown to be otherwise. It is a relationship in accordance with man’s nature, subject to conditions. The sexual Union of 2 men is always contrary to man’s nature and is always an immoral state.

The issue is only about the manner in which (if at all) the relationship of the 2 men is addressed. The men need to be treated respectfully, but their relationship ought not to be portrayed as positive or a “normal” situation. Omitting reference to it is likely the best course, as simultaneously achieving these objectives would seem to be difficult.

 

[Burning_Sapling]

There is no issue in recognizing the donation - it comes from what we presume to be the properly obtained financial resources of two people, not the proceeds of crime! But the marriage of a man and woman is in general accepted as valid unless shown to be otherwise. It is a relationship in accordance with man’s nature, subject to conditions. The sexual Union of 2 men is always contrary to man’s nature and is always an immoral state.

The issue is only about the manner in which (if at all) the relationship of the 2 men is addressed. The men need to be treated respectfully, but their relationship ought not to be portrayed as positive or a “normal” situation. Omitting reference to it is likely the best course, as simultaneously achieving these objectives would seem to be difficult.

Thank you for your insights. At this point, my boss has read the initial draft where I tried to omit reference to the two men’s relationship and she has requested that in the next draft I address them as a couple. I think I might just have to say that I’m not comfortable with this and hope for the best. Though I have also considered that it may be acceptable to address them as a couple since this might not necessarily be an endorsement. Any thoughts on this?

Also, how do people feel about noting that they live together? This is another thing that I think my boss wants, and I thought that this might be ok especially since this is consistent with their relationship not being a homosexual partnership. Thanks in advance for your help!

 

[clem456]

Thank you for your insights. At this point, my boss has read the initial draft where I tried to omit reference to the two men’s relationship and she has requested that in the next draft I address them as a couple. I think I might just have to say that I’m not comfortable with this and hope for the best. Though I have also considered that it may be acceptable to address them as a couple since this might not necessarily be an endorsement. Any thoughts on this?

Also, how do people feel about noting that they live together? This is another thing that I think my boss wants, and I thought that this might be ok especially since this is consistent with their relationship not being a homosexual partnership. Thanks in advance for your help!

I think you must weigh the potential offense with the consequences of losing your job.
It is legitimate to weigh those factors in making a decision. You have a moral obligation to provide for yourself and your family. Not at any cost, but you have to give that responsibility proper weight.

 

[808Catholic]

Thank you for your insights. At this point, my boss has read the initial draft where I tried to omit reference to the two men’s relationship and she has requested that in the next draft I address them as a couple. I think I might just have to say that I’m not comfortable with this and hope for the best. Though I have also considered that it may be acceptable to address them as a couple since this might not necessarily be an endorsement. Any thoughts on this?

Also, how do people feel about noting that they live together? This is another thing that I think my boss wants, and I thought that this might be ok especially since this is consistent with their relationship not being a homosexual partnership. Thanks in advance for your help!

I’m guessing your boss has the authority to edit your work prior to publication. I would suggest now is your time of trial and explain to her that you can not (respectfully) include those details due to religious objections. She, as your boss (and editor?), has the power to change your article so she may do as she sees fit.

Yes, you run the risk of being fired but consider this: who is your real “boss”? Do you answer to a woman who judges your objections to homosexual cohabitation outweighs your contributions as a writer or do you answer to the Lord of the Universe, Creator of all, and Lord of all? You can and will always find another job; can you find another “God”?

God Bless you and have a Blessed Easter.

 

[Rau]

Thank you for your insights. At this point, my boss has read the initial draft where I tried to omit reference to the two men’s relationship and she has requested that in the next draft I address them as a couple. I think I might just have to say that I’m not comfortable with this and hope for the best. Though I have also considered that it may be acceptable to address them as a couple since this might not necessarily be an endorsement. Any thoughts on this?

Also, how do people feel about noting that they live together? This is another thing that I think my boss wants, and I thought that this might be ok especially since this is consistent with their relationship not being a homosexual partnership. Thanks in advance for your help!

Addressing them as a couple would seem to portray that as normal. Saying they live together may be fine though I struggle to see why that would be relevant in the article.

 

[SavannahGal]

Thank you for your insights. At this point, my boss has read the initial draft where I tried to omit reference to the two men’s relationship and she has requested that in the next draft I address them as a couple. I think I might just have to say that I’m not comfortable with this and hope for the best. Though I have also considered that it may be acceptable to address them as a couple since this might not necessarily be an endorsement. Any thoughts on this?

Also, how do people feel about noting that they live together? This is another thing that I think my boss wants, and I thought that this might be ok especially since this is consistent with their relationship not being a homosexual partnership. Thanks in advance for your help!

First of all, I appreciate the scrutiny with which you are considering the matter and think it admirable you are asking for (name removed by moderator)ut/guidance. It speaks highly of your character.

Now I’m an old southern woman who spends an inordinate amount of time trying to remember my own grandchildren’s names and looking for glasses that I’m already wearing. So take my two cents for whatever it’s worth to you.

Personally, I would urge you not to omit or attempt to gloss over the fact that these donors are a married couple. To me, this is much less a religious question and more so a question of good manners and etiquette. If they donated money to your organization as a married couple, then your organization has an obligation to thank them as a married couple. Not doing so would be terribly rude and disrespectful. If the organization cannot thank them as a married couple, it should not have accepted the donation to be begin with.

I have done a lot of fundraising over the years and run several non-profits. And to be quite honest with you, if I was your boss, I might let you opt out and have someone else write the piece, but I wouldn’t accept anything less than a proper thank you. And I think you should assume that your boss will demand the same.

And I suppose I don’t really see the moral conflict here. They are a legally married couple. We might not like that or believe their relationship to be sinful, but the fact that they are a married couple is just that…a fact. And this married couple made a generous donation. Again, another fact. That’s just reality and I don’t see why it needs to be spun in a certain way to be consistent with our moral standards. You’re not lending your approval or compromising your values by simply acknowledging reality. In reading this article, people will learn that a gay couple did a very kind and generous thing because they did.

That’s this old lady’s take on it anyway.

Good luck to you and God bless.

 

[Personanongrata]

Yes, it would be implicit endorsement. That is how things creep in. Don’t support it- if anyone asks you why- tell them.

It is good for Christians to take a moral stance, especially when it goes against the flow.

Yes, by all means, tell your supervisor why you won’t do it and then start looking for that type of job within a Catholic community. It sounds like you are incapable of fulfilling the responsibilities of your current position. That’s not your employer’s fault.

 

[Rau]

…They are a legally married couple. We might not like that or believe their relationship to be sinful, but the fact that they are a married couple is just that…a fact. And this married couple made a generous donation. Again, another fact. That’s just reality and I don’t see why it needs to be spun in a certain way to be consistent with our moral standards. You’re not lending your approval or compromising your values by simply acknowledging reality. In reading this article, people will learn that a gay couple did a very kind and generous thing because they did…

There is no suggestion that the article should do as you suggest in the bolded text. Rather, if the article refers to the ‘marital’ status of the two persons at all, then it will clearly need to present their circumstance as a moral norm, as anything less than that would clearly be unacceptable.

 

[SavannahGal]

There is no suggestion that the article should do as you suggest in the bolded text. Rather, if the article refers to the ‘marital’ status of the two persons at all, then it will clearly need to present their circumstance as a moral norm, as anything less than that would clearly be unacceptable.

If even within the context of a simple thank you to a gay couple, one is necessarily implying their approval, then realize that implicature has no neutral ground. You’re suggesting that in the absence of being able to make some qualifying statement that would express your disapproval, something that would obviously be inappropriate in this situation, that the best alternative is to just omit information. Omission in this case is a form of deception, meant to distort or hide the complete truth. “Oh, maybe they’re just good friends or business partners.” And there is nothing neutral about that. It’s simply another way of expressing disapproval.

Is there no space in our society free from the gay marriage debate? When someone does a kind a generous thing, you can’t just say thank you without first qualifying that statement?

Look at the message you’re sending to this gay couple. You’re saying that in every aspect of their lives, even in their charitable endeavors, that when you look at them, what you see first and foremost is “grave sin” and must first acknowledge that because everything else is secondary: “You’re an abomination, and oh yeah, thanks for the donation.”

 

[Ignatius]

I am so torn about this. I would likely have to give up my job if I refused to write. So I have to think very carefully about it.

At least we don’t have to give up our lives for The Faith
.
.
.
.
.
Not yet anyway! But we should prepare ourselves for that, it’s coming.

 

[Rau]

If even within the context of a simple thank you to a gay couple, one is necessarily implying their approval, then realize that implicature has no neutral ground. You’re suggesting that in the absence of being able to make some qualifying statement that would express your disapproval, something that would obviously be inappropriate in this situation, that the best alternative is to just omit information. Omission in this case is a form of deception, meant to distort or hide the complete truth. “Oh, maybe they’re just good friends or business partners.” And there is nothing neutral about that. It’s simply another way of expressing disapproval.

Is there no space in our society free from the gay marriage debate? When someone does a kind a generous thing, you can’t just say thank you without first qualifying that statement?

Look at the message you’re sending to this gay couple. You’re saying that in every aspect of their lives, even in their charitable endeavors, that when you look at them, what you see first and foremost is “grave sin” and must first acknowledge that because everything else is secondary: “You’re an abomination, and oh yeah, thanks for the donation.”

No qualification was proposed by me and nor do I suggest any (negative)
qualification is desirable. Such would be highly inappropriate.

“We are so grateful to Mr Joe Citizen and Mr Steve Guy for their generous donation to our Winter Appeal”.

That seems to be a “simple thank you” that deceives no one. Were a man and a woman living together unmarried, would it be necessary to mention that?