Invitation by Homosexual daughter

[Fmarion]

Help me out. I didn’t see “shunning” anywhere in here. (We’ve taken them out to eat at various times, etc.)

Didn’t see “insulting” anywhere in there, either.

 

[SnowRose]

Look, any wedding is prime territory for family issues.
If one set of parents intends to make a statement due to their faith, it is understandable, but not likely to be forgotten. If nothing else the parents of the other bride will remember how this was handled.

So I really don’t see a longterm happy solution.

 

[BlackFriar]

Is legitimately engaging in sex with one’s condomised non Catholic husband also enjoying, celebrating and condoning contracepted sex?

When you can explain this alleged contradiction in Church teaching do come back.

 

[BlackFriar]

BlackFriar:

Just as a good Catholic wife is sometimes allowed to have sex with her non Catholic condomised husband on the same principles.

Gonna need more explanation on this one.

Its approved Church practise and so in accord with Church teaching.
What is there to explain?

 

[BlackFriar]

BlackFriar:

In 20 years time the Church will quietly accept the legalisation of SS relationships as it has done with decriminalisation of sodomy, prostitution, adultery etc etc etc.

…please, PLEASE show me where the Church teaches that “sodomy, prostitution, adultery etc etc etc” are things that we should quietly accept, rather than gently but firmly speak the truth about and then avoid.

Please consider Matthew 13. I am worried for you.

Just educate yourself on your own faith.
For example look up Augustine and Aquinas on the legitimacy of Christian States not criminalising prostitution.

 

[BlackFriar]

Most sinners don’t have dinners for the purpose of normalizing their sin, however.

Its a tad precious to believe that SS couples seek civil unions and associated familial dinners with the prospective in-laws so as to spite Catholicism and their parents whom they know are hugely opposed to active homosexuality.

A reasonable persons would more likely conclude dinners with familial “sinners” are what they have always been. A celebration of family membership and love - especially with the new in-laws who will now be related to each other through the new affine relationship which is a primary effect of a civil union (and any legal marriage). That is what is being celebrated I suggest.

Just as was the case with the lavish dinners a guy named Jesus had with tax collectors who spent their ill gotten gains on expensive all night parties that Jesus very gladly took part in. Was he “celebrating” extortion?
Yeah, right.

 

[Fmarion]

I hate to be a stickler, but there is no bride.

 

[BlackFriar]

Help me out. I didn’t see “shunning” anywhere in here. (We’ve taken them out to eat at various times, etc.)

If not refusing invites to go out for a meal is evidence of not shunning…
Then what does refusing of the ceremony invite, a somewhat more significant event in their lives, suggest to most people?

You will do whatever you like.
But lets also face likely impressions and consequences of what we do and how that is seen by others. There is no infallible Church doctrine re these matters.
They are prudential…which is why Catholics have a choice re what they do in these situations.

Just “sayin.”

 

[Fmarion]

“All night parties”?..Hmmmm - I missed that in the Gospels.

 

[Fmarion]

Aquinas and Augustine have had a large influence on explaining our faith but they are not our faith. They both said things that are clearly wrong.

 

[JanetF]

If not refusing invites to go out for a meal is evidence of not shunning…

Then what does refusing of the ceremony invite, a somewhat more significant event in their lives, suggest to most people?

A choice to not participate in something we believe is sinful and threatens their eternal soul. What’s more important, their eternal soul, or their earthly feelings about an event?

 

[SnowRose]

Bride and groom
Groom and groom
Bride and Bride

I hate to be difficult but that’s the terminology, whether your theology can handle it or not.

 

[BlackFriar]

…They both said things that are clearly wrong.

Please.
You don’t know what you are talking about and appear to have never researched your faith in this area.
Simply trying to win the day based on childhood Catechesis and personal inspiration from the HS does appear extravagant on a public forum.

 

[Fmarion]

Q: If you call a tail a leg how many legs does a dog have?
A: Four. It doesn’t matter what you call it a tail is not a leg.

 

[BlackFriar]

A choice to not participate in something we believe is sinful and threatens their eternal soul. What’s more important, their eternal soul, or their earthly feelings about an event?

Unfortunately our own Pope disagrees also.
Common sense is able to discern that many couples in irregular cohabitations are full of grace and beloved of God.
Not all ongoing outwardly looking sinful situations are actually sinful - that is the thing.

Clearly not all civil unions should be attended.
But to blindly shun all of them for being intrinsically evil, wholly without merit and doctrinally taught by the Church is a ridiculous stance to take.

It is a prudential issue.
Some ceremonies can be attended under certain circumstances.

The parents need to be very very careful to understand their motives for doing this.
As a number of us note, the Church has reversed its strong disciplinary suggestions on such ceremonial matters (eg mixed marriages, marriages in other Churches) in the past and will likely do so with civil unions when it realises it is on the wrong side of history.

Its fairly obvious to those with eyes to see that this is the strategy the Church always takes with these sort of never before faced issues within the Church.

First its absolutely prohibited. Even excommunications.
Then if that doesn’t stem the flood (eg divorce and remarrtiage) and we are are losing otherwise good members exceptions start being allowed.
Finally, if needed the formerly ostracised offenders are welcomed back as true members who do not necessarily need to change their cohabitations. Indeed, some are even allowed back to confession and Communion.

Its all about prudential discernment not rigid one size fits all rules, ultimatums and lines in the sand that cannot be crossed lest Catholic teaching fail.

I would not want to have egg on my face in 20 years time for taking a completely unnecessary and rigid stand on the most important day in my daughter’s life which is built on sand and likely to be later disowned by the Church itself.

What would my daughter think of me then?
What was it all for exactly?

 

[Fmarion]

I’m trembling for you now at how misguided your statements are. I will pray for you.

In essence, your statements inevitably leads us to “Everything will eventually be O.K. There is no absolute Truth. The Church will come around.” Again, I tremble for you.

It saddens me that you think this way and have said you are a daily communicant.

 

[BlackFriar]

I am sorry that you are unable to make prudential judgments in the mess of human life based on unchanging Catholic principles.

If you have mistaken unchanging principles for unchanging rules of daily conduct then you must face the consequences of such rigidity - which could be a completely unnecessary life long family division.

I would be a little surprised if that division with your daughter has not already been there for some years reading between the lines of the comments you have presented here.

So, in answer to your original post:
I would say your attending or not attending any pre-wedding “celebrations/meals/meetngreets” with your future in-laws is of little or no consequence…given your views and reasons for not attending the ceremony itself.

The whole “relationship” thing both with your daughter and them appears sealed already.

I will pray for you also.

 

[Paul71]

Just educate yourself on your own faith.

For example look up Augustine and Aquinas on the legitimacy of Christian States not criminalising prostitution.

Even if the state does not criminalise prostitution, that doesn’t mean it is OK for a Christian to take actions that send the message that he or she thinks prostitution is a good thing that should be celebrated. And I believe that attending the same-sex “wedding” of a close family member would be sending the message that one thinks same-sex “marriage” is a good thing that should be celebrated.

I believe that I would make the same choice as the original poster, and not attend this “wedding.” I also would not shun the family member, and would take other opportunities to spend time with that family member.

 

[BlackFriar]

Even if the state does not criminalise prostitution,

Its good some here are open to accepting actual Church practise and teaching.

And I believe that attending the same-sex “wedding” of a close family member would be sending the message that one thinks same-sex “marriage” is a good thing that should be celebrated.

I suppose the ultimate issue on this thread is whether this is objectively true always and everywhere.

Given that many sincere, educated and intelligent Catholics believe differently from you (ie most 1st world secular attendees realise parents can attend under sufferance and would praise them for their loyalty to their child even though they clearly do not accept the lifestyle) … I suggest it is a prudential discernment where Catholics may validly differ in their decisions on this matter due to variations in circumstance.

That is, like automatic cars, there is in no absolutely direct connection between engine (Church teaching on homosexual acts) and wheels (attending a CU means a denial of that teaching).

Which is why some cars can stop at lights without clutching and without stalling the engine.
There is room for drive slippage.

 

[BlackFriar]

Sure. The one we’re actually talking about, however, has a purpose beyond simply being around each other.

Does it?

Itsn’t it a primary purpose of formalised affine relationships (such as adoption, marriage, civil unions) to be faithfully, loyally and permanently “around each other” and make two extended families one and “around each other”?

Now being for and around each other … that is worth celebrating, as Jesus enthusiastically agreed and so much so as to be accused of being a drunkard, a glutton and a client of prostitutes.

Its simply a foretaste of what is being established in law and in the hearts of most of those involved whether one likes it or not.

I suggest the whips n tables in the temple was about precisely the opposite.
Money changers and temple authorities more interested in fleecing the faithful than being “around them” and for them. The rabble who know not the law and all that.

Its risable to suggest such a man as Jesus would never attend an invitation to an event where people committed to faithfully, loyally and permanently being there for another person.