In The Not Too Distant Future…

[MidnightSun12]

How is providing flowers, in a business transaction, where you have no control over what they are used for, aiding, promoting, any such thing? This is beyond ridiculous, this person would not be paying for anything, supporting anything, engaging in the ceremony, nothing.

The florist was providing a service that was necessary for the performance of the ceremony. The florist also had the power to aid or to not aid this “wedding” by deciding whether to supply the flowers. The fact that there were legal consequences for deciding not to supply the flowers is irrelevant in the eyes of God (there are times when we are commanded to disobey unjust laws such as this one).

 

[cwltexas]

The florist was providing a service that was necessary for the performance of the ceremony. The florist also had the power to aid or to not aid this “wedding” by deciding whether to supply the flowers. The fact that there were legal consequences for deciding not to supply the flowers is irrelevant in the eyes of God (there are times when we are commanded to disobey unjust laws such as this one).

NO, those flowers were not an essential part of the service, they were part of the setting, they are not required for the ceremony to take place. A license, an official authorized to perform the ceremony and the two participants, any witnesses required by law, are NECESSARY, the flowers are not. You are twisting multiple times to arrive at a conclusion that is not logical.

 

[theistgal]

I honestly thought this was going to be a discussion of “Mystery Science Theater”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Wasn’t it Cdl George who said he expected to die in bed; that his successor would die in prison and that HIS successor would die a martyr. Maybe Cdl George is being paranoid and weird, but one must consider that he pays attention to such things and is a wise man. One must also consider:

-The government of the U.S. in the Hosanna Tabor case attempted to get the courts to agree that the government, not the Lutheran church, can determine who is and who is not a Lutheran minister. Fortunately, the government lost that case.

-The government of the U.S. has directed that Catholic (and other) institutions provide their employees (including Catholic nuns) with contraceptive, abortifacient and sterilization coverage or pay fines they can’t pay. That’s winding its way through the courts right now. So are suits by Catholic (non religious institution) employers. There can be little doubt that if Obama is successful in his drive to rid the House of Republicans in 2014, abortion of other kinds will be added.

-Janet Napolitano has included “traditional Catholics” on the list of those who are to be considered potential terrorists. Well, she did include Al Quaeda and the KKK too, in order to be fair.

-The Defense Department issued an order to Chaplains not to preach against the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”.

So one can hardly doubt this administration’s intentions. One can only question its capabilities.

 

[Ridgerunner]

observe that no one is shooting florists. the government is saying, if you supply goods you supply them to everyone regardless of race, color, creed, sexual orientation.

F/

I am a notary public because of what I do for a living. Once I was approached by a woman who wanted me to notarize her consent to her underage daughter having an abortion. I refused. Being a notary is not “what I do for a living”, but it’s a public service, available to the public, even licensed by the state.

According to your argument, or at least based on your suggestion, I should have no choice but to aid and abet an abortion.

 

[MidnightSun12]

NO, those flowers were not an essential part of the service, they were part of the setting, they are not required for the ceremony to take place. A license, an official authorized to perform the ceremony and the two participants, any witnesses required by law, are NECESSARY, the flowers are not. You are twisting multiple times to arrive at a conclusion that is not logical.

The service doesn’t have to be necessary for it to be scandalous.

For example, it’s a mortal sin to drive somebody to an abortion clinic. It is irrelevant whether that person could have walked their on her own… the simple fact that you assisted is enough for mortal sin to be present.

 

[cwltexas]

The service doesn’t have to be necessary for it to be scandalous.

For example, it’s a mortal sin to drive somebody to an abortion clinic. It is irrelevant whether that person could have walked their on her own… the simple fact that you assisted is enough for mortal sin to be present.

Then it is scandalous to support welfare to perpetuate children being born into poverty and enabling mothers not to go to work and support their families themselves? That would be a mortal sin too, right? Harming children and enabling sloth?

I guess we can just make anything a sin that suits our individual tastes and opinions of right and wrong?

 

[Fairwinds]

I am a notary public because of what I do for a living. Once I was approached by a woman who wanted me to notarize her consent to her underage daughter having an abortion. I refused. Being a notary is not “what I do for a living”, but it’s a public service, available to the public, even licensed by the state.

According to your argument, or at least based on your suggestion, I should have no choice but to aid and abet an abortion.

I’ve spread my arguments over a couple of posts, actually.

if these florists believed it as a matter of conscience, that selling flowers to gays was a grave sin, and the state mandated sales to all, then they should either (1) accept the penal/civil consequences or (2) stop selling flowers.

F/

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The service doesn’t have to be necessary for it to be scandalous.

For example, it’s a mortal sin to drive somebody to an abortion clinic. It is irrelevant whether that person could have walked their on her own… the simple fact that you assisted is enough for mortal sin to be present.

That is different. Getting to the abortion clinic is an essential element to having an abortion there. But having flowers at a ceremony is an inconsequential element of the ceremony. You could just as well say that a plumber who fixes a leak at a gay couple’s house is guilty of facilitating their continued use of the house for immoral purposes. In fact the plumber’s efforts are probably more consequential to the gay couple’s sinful life. Do you want to say that the plumber is also guilty of a mortal sin?

I would agree, however, that officiating at a gay wedding is a serious matter.

 

[MidnightSun12]

Then it is scandalous to support welfare to perpetuate children being born into poverty and enabling mothers not to go to work and support their families themselves? That would be a mortal sin too, right? Harming children and enabling sloth?

I guess we can just make anything a sin that suits our individual tastes and opinions of right and wrong?

We must base our definition of sin on the Church’s infallible teachings. Homosexual activity is wrong in every possible circumstance and that is an infallible teaching as per the ordinary magisterium (Pope in union with the Bishops).

While activities such as welfare can be abused, they are not immoral in and of themselves (in fact, in many cases, welfare is a good thing and the Church supports it). The Church even recognizes that while “gray-area” issues such as gambling, alchohol and tobacco can be sinful, they are not sinful in and of themselves (for example, a Catholic wouldn’t necessarly commit sin by working at a liquor store).

That said, issues such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexual activity, and contraception are absolutely wrong in and of themselves. A Catholic can have absolutely no positive association with these activities.

 

[cwltexas]

We must base our definition of sin on the Church’s infallible teachings. Homosexual activity is wrong in every possible circumstance and that is an infallible teaching as per the ordinary magisterium (Pope in union with the Bishops).

While activities such as welfare can be abused, they are not immoral in and of themselves (in fact, in many cases, welfare is a good thing and the Church supports it). The Church even recognizes that while “gray-area” issues such as gambling, alchohol and tobacco can be sinful, they are not sinful in and of themselves (for example, a Catholic wouldn’t necessarly commit sin by working at a liquor store).

That said, issues such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexual activity, and contraception are absolutely wrong in and of themselves. A Catholic can have absolutely no positive association with these activities.

It is not immoral to have children that you cannot support and to raise them in poverty, REALLY? Is that not DIRECTLY HARMING ANOTHER and is that not a MORTAL SIN?

 

[MidnightSun12]

That is different. Getting to the abortion clinic is an essential element to having an abortion there. But having flowers at a ceremony is an inconsequential element of the ceremony. You could just as well say that a plumber who fixes a leak at a gay couple’s house is guilty of facilitating their continued use of the house for immoral purposes. In fact the plumber’s efforts are probably more consequential to the gay couple’s sinful life. Do you want to say that the plumber is also guilty of a mortal sin?

It’s the show of support that is the issue here. Even if you or I were just one person in the crowd attending the wedding, in the eyes of our Lord, that would be scandalous and could be a mortal sin. Whether the service you are providing is critical to the performance of the ceremony is somewhat irrelevant to the question at hand.

There’s also a difference in the case of the plumber and the immoral household. The people inside the household are going to need to use the washroom regardless of whether they are doing immoral things or virtuous things.

 

[MidnightSun12]

It is not immoral to have children that you cannot support and to raise them in poverty, REALLY? Is that not DIRECTLY HARMING ANOTHER and is that not a MORTAL SIN?

No, children are a blessing from God and our Lord never gives us more then we can handle.

 

[cwltexas]

It’s the show of support that is the issue here. Even if you were just one person in the crowd attending the wedding, in the eyes of our Lord, that would be scandalous and could be a mortal sin. Whether the service you are providing is critical to the performance of the ceremony is somewhat irrelevant to the question at hand.

There’s also a difference in the case of the plumber and the immoral household. The people inside the household are going to need to use the washroom regardless of whether they are doing immoral things or virtuous things.

Absolutely unbelievable and comical to be honest about it. Pretzel anyone?

 

[cwltexas]

No, children are a blessing from God and our Lord never gives us more then we can handle.

When the Mama is dependent on welfare in order to keep a roof over their head, food in their mouth and access to medical care, seems to me it is abuse, neglect and a mortal sin?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It’s the show of support that is the issue here.

The degree of support represented by the florist is a matter of interpretation. You have obviously attached a lot of importance to it. I think most people would realize that flowers are just a commodity and the supplier is not endorsing the wedding by supplying them. Suppose they went to Walmart to buy paper plates for the reception and told the cashier what they were going to be used for. Would the cashier be liable for mortal sin by ringing them up? Of course not. Selling them paper plates in no way implies any endorsement of the gay wedding. Flowers are about the same thing. You might have a case, though, against a musician or DJ who agrees to provide services to the reception. That activity is generally seen as being supportive of the wedding.

 

[MidnightSun12]

The degree of support represented by the florist is a matter of interpretation. You have obviously attached a lot of importance to it. I think most people would realize that flowers are just a commodity and the supplier is not endorsing the wedding by supplying them. Suppose they went to Walmart to buy paper plates for the reception and told the cashier what they were going to be used for. Would the cashier be liable for mortal sin by ringing them up? Of course not. Selling them paper plates in no way implies any endorsement of the gay wedding. Flowers are about the same thing. You might have a case, though, against a musician or DJ who agrees to provide services to the reception. That activity is generally seen as being supportive of the wedding.

Scandal occurs if a representation is made to a reasonable person that gives the impression of support for a sinful act. A boquet of flowers is a custom-made artistic work and the wedding ceremony is a major source of advertisement for the florist. It’s much more likely that somebody is going to assume that the florist who provided a custom arrangement for a “gay wedding” is supportive of same-sex activity (which is even more serious if that florist is known to be Catholic) then the supermarket from which the paper plates were purchased.

Also, we are required to avoid the near occaison of sin.

 

[MidnightSun12]

The degree of support represented by the florist is a matter of interpretation. You have obviously attached a lot of importance to it. I think most people would realize that flowers are just a commodity and the supplier is not endorsing the wedding by supplying them. Suppose they went to Walmart to buy paper plates for the reception and told the cashier what they were going to be used for. Would the cashier be liable for mortal sin by ringing them up? Of course not. Selling them paper plates in no way implies any endorsement of the gay wedding. Flowers are about the same thing. You might have a case, though, against a musician or DJ who agrees to provide services to the reception. That activity is generally seen as being supportive of the wedding.

At the end of the day, you could argue that offering incense to the god’s of Rome wasn’t technically sinful, either. That said, we know which 3rd and 4th century christians are recognized as Saints and Martyrs by the Church and it wasn’t the christians who were offering the incense.

No faithful Catholic should even be trying to push the envelope and tempting God in this way. If you require this degree of proof, then that is a sign of a serious lack of faith and I will pray for you.

 

[cwltexas]

At the end of the day, you could argue that offering incense to the god’s of Rome wasn’t technically sinful, either. That said, we know which 3rd and 4th century christians are recognized as Saints and Martyrs by the Church and it wasn’t the christians who were offering the incense.

No faithful Catholic should even be trying to push the envelope and tempting God in this way. If you require this degree of proof, then that is a sign of a serious lack of faith and I will pray for you.

Pray for yourself, you need it much more than me, ask for help with that sanctimonious attitude and incredible judgment of others you have going on.

 

[Edward_H]

How is providing flowers, in a business transaction, where you have no control over what they are used for, aiding, promoting, any such thing? This is beyond ridiculous, this person would not be paying for anything, supporting anything, engaging in the ceremony, nothing.

Have you had a substantial class, talk, or course on catholic moral decision making?

Do you understand “material cooperation” with evil?