Invitation by Homosexual daughter

[BlackFriar]

Objective truth is objective truth, no matter how many people believe it or not.

In your quest for abstract tautological truth you seem to have lost the thread plot re the historical truth I simply observed above …

the Church can and always has allowed greater legislated disorders in the State than within the Church.

 

[Paul71]

Given that many sincere, educated and intelligent Catholics believe differently from you

Agreed, but many of them also believe the same as me. And I don’t think that the right decision should necessarily be based on a poll or a popularity contest.

(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 don’t think that the opinion of “1st world secular attendees” is very relevant, since I am a Catholic. And if I were in this situation, I would be primarily concerned about the witness I would be giving to other Catholics and non-Catholic Christians, and secondarily concerned about my witness to secular folks.

… I suggest it is a prudential discernment where Catholics may validly differ in their decisions on this matter due to variations in circumstance.

In one sense, I agree that this is a prudential decision, but it is one where the correct decision seems clear to me. But if you don’t believe that attending a same-sex “wedding” implies support for same-sex “marriage,” and if you judge that that is the general belief among your peers, then I can understand how you would come to a different conclusion. I would disagree with your premises, but I wouldn’t disagree that your conclusion follows from your premises.

But if you believe that this is a prudential decision, then why do you seem to be so intent on convincing others that your prudential decision is the right one? Or am I misinterpreting your intent?

 

[QwertyGirl]

Because the purpose of the dinner is to get everyone involved used to the idea that the two girls in question are in a same-sex relationship.

Or maybe the purpose of the dinner is just to share a meal between family and friends, regardless of the subset of interpersonal relationships that may or may not exist.

You know, this issue seems to always be made far more complicated than it needs to be. Parents are at a crossroads. They either decide to remain in the lives of their child and value that concept, or they don’t. The rest is extraneous. Sin or no sin, that isn’t the issue. The issue is that as parents, we bring children into the world and we either love them or we don’t. I, for one, can tell you wild horses couldn’t keep me away from my child’s wedding ceremony regardless of the circumstances. If she picked someone, then I am going to get along with all of them. It the wedding is a huge mistake, and I can see that in my crystal ball, then I am still going so she knows I love her and will be there for her when the house of cards come tumbling down. That would be the worst case scenario.

The “right” or “wrong” of the relationship or ceremony is secondary. What matters to me is that my relationship with my child stays strong so she will come to me for advice, encouragement, help, and whatever else she may need as she navigates her way through life. I think that is the moral thing to do.

Most people would feel allienated from their parents if they didn’t show up on their wedding day. I have observed that in these types of situations, usually the parent/child relationship wasn’t that great to begin with. It begs the question: What came first, the bad relationship or the regrettable decision of not showing up to your kid’s wedding?

 

[CilladeRoma]

@QwertyGirl, beautifully said.
Your children are blessed to have you as a mother.

 

[Paul71]

I, for one, can tell you wild horses couldn’t keep me away from my child’s wedding ceremony regardless of the circumstances.

I have a few questions, but first let me clarify that this is a hypothetical thought experiment. I’m not saying that any of the things below would really happen. But please consider these questions:

• What if one of your children planned to marry his or her biological brother or sister?
• What if one of your children intended to go through a “wedding” ceremony to “marry” a robot? (This is science fiction now, but in 10 to 20 years it probably won’t be.)
• What if your 35-year-old son intended to go through a wedding ceremony with a 13-year-old girl?
• What if your son intended to go through a wedding ceremony to marry two or more women at the same time?

Would you attend any or all of these hypothetical wedding ceremonies? Even if you say yes, you would attend them, would you at least agree that some parents could reasonably choose not to attend such a ceremony for one of their children, in one or more of these situations?

While these situations are unlikely, the point is that many Catholics (myself included) see two men professing to marry each other, or two women professing to marry each other, as being every bit as problematic as the situations described above. (But I’m not saying that same-sex physical intimacy is wrong for exactly the same reasons that the situations above are wrong.)

 

[Axsenex]

Y’all got too much time spent on Sin Talk Express.

 

[QwertyGirl]

While these situations are unlikely, the point is that many Catholics (myself included) see two men professing to marry each other, or two women professing to marry each other, as being every bit as problematic as the situations described above. (But I’m not saying that same-sex physical intimacy is wrong for exactly the same reasons that the situations above are wrong.)

I impulsively replied to your post but decided I really shouldn’t be arguing here about the virtue of agreeing or disagreeing with same-sex marriage, so I deleted it.

Instead, I just want to reiterate what I hope may offer a different view of what this issue is really about. We should love our children all the days of their lives. Though some here feel attending such a wedding is a huge moral dilemma and/or sinful, I would weigh it against the damage done by not being “there” for your kids when they need you. Kids who have already decided to marry and who are old enough to marry aren’t going to suddenly change their mind on the matter because their parents aren’t going to show up to the wedding. They will, often times however, change their mind about how much trust and respect they can have for parents who don’t show up for them on what may well be the most imporant day of their life. Right or wrong, again doesn’t really matter at this point. Missing the wedding compromises the parent/child relationship and that is what matters.

Kids need their parents, and parents should need their kids, if the relationship is a healthy one. God didn’t put us in families so we can just put those bonds aside when things get hard.

People here will say, what about consideration for the parent’s feelings/beliefs. To that I say, they already had their wedding. Their day has past. It is their kid’s day and wedding. Sometimes, sacrifice is far more beautiful than avoiding the sin of “scandal”. That is all I am saying. Weigh the decision to go to the wedding against the importance of the components of the relationship between parent and child.

 

[BlackFriar]

Agreed, but many of them also believe the same as me. And I don’t think that the right decision should necessarily be based on a poll or a popularity contest.

You have completely missed the point.
The simply fact that there are large differences of opinion on this amongst Catholics indicates that attending a ceremony is not objectively intrinsically evil always and everywhere as extremists are proffering in this discussion.

Given that the Church has not taught that attendance is a matter of doctrine Catholics are therefore free to make the decision themselves on a prudential basis.

In fact the Church actually does teach that the evil of others may be cooperated in under certain conditions. Even contracepting.

Now if an actual intrinsic evil by others, such as contracepting, can be legitimately cooperated with under certain circumstances its a done deal for matters that are not intrinsically evil surely?

What could be clearer?
There is no apriori doctrinal teaching prohibiting attendance regardless of circumstances.
There may well be strong disciplinary encouragement not to attend.

You are welcome to provide recent Magisterial evidence that Catholics commit mortal sin by choosing to attend under all circumstances.

you seem to be so intent on convincing others that your prudential decision is the right one? Or am I misinterpreting your intent?

Yes this indicates you do not understand the point.
I am only trying to convince people of what the Church’s actual position is.
Namely it does not teach it is like murder or abortion which is always wrong to choose without considering circumstances.
Therefore its a prudential issue by those who actually know all the circumstances…and even then they may be objectively wrong because life is complicated and knowledge is limited.

But to go into the situation beforehand saying “we know we cannot attend” without examining the circumstances is madness. The Church does not teach it is like this. There may be options.

I have never said it is moral for them to attend in this case.
I have simply observed that the Church allows prudential discovery in this matter.

I have further observed my own prudential considerations on the matter and the prudential judgements I would make if certain circumstances were deemed in play (my daughter would likely feel permanently disowned if I did not attend; other attendees would not think I condoned their lifestyle by attending but would be scandalised by a “Christianity” that denies more basic Christian values they live by).

 

[Paul71]

Kids who have already decided to marry and who are old enough to marry aren’t going to suddenly change their mind on the matter because their parents aren’t going to show up to the wedding.

If one of my children was going to participate in a wedding ceremony with a member of the same sex, and if I decided not to attend (as I believe I would), I wouldn’t be trying to make my child change his mind by not attending. I would be trying to say with my actions that while I love my child, I am not giving public support for my child’s decision, nor am I celebrating his decision.

But if the issue were something lesser, like if my son was marrying a woman who I strongly disliked and who I thought would be a terrible wife for him, then in that case I would mostly agree with what you wrote in your post (which I think was well written and full of good points). I would agree that my non-attendance isn’t going to change his mind, and my non-attendance would only alienate my son and his spouse. And in this case, I would probably attend. I would be supporting his right to make his own decision, which (in this hypothetical scenario) I believe is imprudent and unwise, but not morally wrong. I would hope for a good marriage for him and his wife.

But to me, the situation of a homosexual union is different (and different in kind, not just in degree). It wouldn’t be just that my child made a bad choice of a spouse, but rather that my child is attempting to enter a fake marriage that is based on gravely immoral sexual practices. You probably do not see it that way, and I’m not asking you to see it that way. But if someone does see it that way (as I do), then I think the decision not to attend is understandable. In other words, you probably disagree with my premise (that homosexual acts and unions are gravely wrong). But if you were to hypothetically accept my premise, then would you agree that the conclusion (not attending such a wedding) is one that a reasonable person could reach?

I respect your decision to delete your earlier post. And I agree that we don’t need to get into an argument here over whether same-sex “marriage” is right or wrong. I’m trying to explain my position, but I’m not trying to convince you to agree with me that homosexual acts or same-sex “marriage” are wrong.

But I read part of your earlier post before you deleted it, and I believe you said that at least in the hypothetical case of your 35-year-old son marrying a 13-year-old girl, you would not attend the wedding. If that is true, then I think you understand my position. Can we agree that there is at least some extreme situation (however unlikely) that is so blatantly wrong that we wouldn’t give our support by attending a wedding? We disagree on which situations we would include on that list, and it appears that my list would be longer than yours. But maybe we agree there could at least be some circumstance that we wouldn’t support by attending a wedding ceremony?

 

[Paul71]

You have completely missed the point.

The simply fact that there are large differences of opinion on this amongst Catholics indicates that attending a ceremony is not objectively intrinsically evil always and everywhere as extremists are proffering in this discussion.

I am arguing that I would not attend, and I have given reasons why. I have not argued that attending a same-sex “wedding” ceremony is intrinsically evil, always and everywhere. So if I missed the point, I guess what I missed was that your argument was aimed at a position other than the one I hold.

Given that the Church has not taught that attendance is a matter of doctrine Catholics are therefore free to make the decision themselves on a prudential basis.

In fact the Church actually does teach that the evil of others may be cooperated in under certain conditions. Even contracepting.

Now if an actual intrinsic evil by others, such as contracepting, can be legitimately cooperated with under certain circumstances its a done deal for matters that are not intrinsically evil surely?

In principle, I would agree that under certain circumstances (certainly not all circumstances though), some level of cooperation with evil is permissible.

You are welcome to provide recent Magisterial evidence that Catholics commit mortal sin by choosing to attend under all circumstances.

I haven’t argued in favor of this point, so I feel no obligation to provide evidence to support it.

I am only trying to convince people of what the Church’s actual position is.
Namely it does not teach it is like murder or abortion which is always wrong to choose without considering circumstances.

Then clearly I have misunderstood your intent. I was under the impression that you were arguing a more forceful position than what you state here. And I would agree that attending a same-sex “wedding” is not intrinsically evil in the same way that murder and abortion are instrinsically evil. It is hard for me to imagine realistic circumstances in which attending such a ceremony would be the right thing to do, but no, I don’t think that attending such a ceremony is intrinsically evil. And I haven’t seen anyone else here who has argued that it is intrinsically evil either, which is probably why I didn’t understand that that was the point you were arguing against. (However, I haven’t read every single post, so maybe I missed something.)

 

[BlackFriar]

In other words, you probably disagree with my premise (that homosexual acts and unions are gravely wrong). But if you were to hypothetically accept my premise, then would you agree that the conclusion (not attending such a wedding) is one that a reasonable person could reach?

I leave QG to answer for herself, but for myself…

No I don’t disagree with your premise that homosexual acts are wrong.
I do disagree with the iron-clad linkage between that and attending a SS civil union ceremony.

But that aside, you are entitled to do whatever you feel fit or your conscience tells you to do.

The issue many will have difficultly with I believe is that the original poster seems to be telling us that their decision not to attend is the only possible moral one for any Catholic parent and this is what the Church teaches. That is bunkem.

The second issue is that even if you and others do follow your premises/conscience that doesn’t make it objectively reasonable. There may be unanticipated consequences. Such as irretrievable distancing of the daughter, the Church one day withdrawing its current negative disciplinary stance (as it has for remarriages and marriages outside the Church). in that sense the choice may be unreasonable.

I think QG and myself are trying to point out a few of those human realities from our own personal experiences/insights in this area that the original poster may not have.

As someone with not insignificant pastoral experience in family matters I can see that there seems to be a history of issues with this particular child and the ceremony/meetngreet issue looks to be but a further playing out of a long existing cold war as some sort of parental/child power-struggle.

I suggest the SS civil union thing is really the least of the moral issues at play here.
My instincts are telling me trajectory coordinates were locked in to this rocket quite some time ago, the thread question is looking for reinforcement not questioning of those coordinates and the attendance issue and consequences are inevitable.

But if ever the coordinates had a chance of being altered, then this milestone event is the time, there probably wont be many more windows of opportunity to do so in the future.
But what do I know. I am a bystander.

I think this discussion has run its course as positions are just being repeated.
At least for me.
God bless to all.

 

[Paul71]

The issue many will have difficultly with I believe is that the original poster seems to be telling us that their decision not to attend is the only possible moral one for any Catholic parent and this is what the Church teaches. That is bunkem.

I just now went back and re-read the original post on this thread by Fmarion, and every additional post on this thread by Fmarion. I didn’t see any post where Fmarion argued that his decision is “the only possible moral one for any Catholic parent and this is what the Church teaches.” He may or may not believe that, but I haven’t seen him make that argument here.

the Church one day withdrawing its current negative disciplinary stance (as it has for remarriages and marriages outside the Church)

I’m not sure what you mean by that. In the case of remarriage where a valid first marriage still exists, there certainly is some current confusion in the church on this point. But I think that if you look at what the church teaches (not what this bishop or that priest, etc. has said), these unions are still not regarded as valid marriages, and in fact cannot be regarded as valid marriages. (And I don’t think I would attend this type of wedding either.)

And in the case of marriages outside the church, as far as I know, the Catholic Church has always taught that non-Catholics can contract valid marriages. I would have no qualms attending such a wedding.

Or do you mean the disciplinary restriction that Catholics must observe canonical form (i.e., must be married in the Catholic Church, or at least must receive a dispensation allowing them to marry elsewhere)? If so, that is a different type of issue, because it is a disciplinary issue as to what rules a Catholic is bound to follow when contracting marriage. But the difference between marriage and same-sex “marriage” is not a disciplinary issue.

I think QG and myself are trying to point out a few of those human realities from our own personal experiences/insights in this area that the original poster may not have.

And those points are valid. As I said, I would agree with much of the reasoning in Qwertygirl’s most recent post, if we looked at a different situation, such as a poor choice of potential spouse. And even in the case of a same-sex “wedding,” I agree that those factors are real, and should not be casually swept aside.

As someone with not insignificant pastoral experience in family matters I can see that there seems to be a history of issues with this particular child and the ceremony/meetngreet issue looks to be but a further playing out of a long existing cold war as some sort of parental/child power-struggle.

That’s certainly possible, but it’s none of my business one way or the other. I am trying to look at this from a hypothetical perspective of “what if this happened to me.” And in my hypothetical, I’m assuming that I have a good relationship with my child.

 

[QwertyGirl]

In the case of the 35/13 situation, there is a huge factor present that isn’t in the same-sex wedding. In the 35/13 situation, the 35 year old is a despicable person because he is preying on a child who is not able to give consent. So the issue then becomes, do you stand by and witness abusive behavior in this way? A same sex relationship of consenting adults isn’t abusive because it is a same sex relationship of consenting adults.

Anyhow, again, my point is that as parents we either decide to love our kids and keep that bond tight, or not. Sometimes one must work really hard to see things differently. I know I have done this with my own child along the way. Always sharing my insight, opinion, and advice along the way, but being there every step along the way.

It is a choice. I think sometimes, at least here at CAF I hear peple say things that makes me believe they believe they don’t have a choice in these matters. Nothing could be further from the truth… Instead of focusing on what they perceive to be sinful or immoral, I would just encourage them to focus on the parent/child bond and how to keep that strong. I don’t believe points are lost with God for doing just that.

 

[BlackFriar]

On the approach of Pope Francis…
“Enter through their door but be sure to leave through your door.”

Its an hour long but a good listen if you have the time.

 

[heidi_storage]

I guess there’s no moral issue with 35-year-old homosexual twins getting married to each other, then.

 

[Fmarion]

First, thank you. You are correct; He did state that I stated things things that I never said.

Second, thanks for your well-reasoned arguments.

 

[Norseman82]

Go to dinner. But not the “wedding”.

No need to shun them completely but going to the wedding is essentially a celebration of their relationship.

I’d have no problem having dinner but I’d tell your daughter that while you don’t approve of the relationship, you still love her and want a relationship with her.

Perhaps if they attend the dinner it be at a “neutral” spot, as going to the couple’s place of residence could be seen as endorsing the living situation (if one’s daughter was a stripper, would one meet for dinner/drinks at the strip club she works at?).

 

[QwertyGirl]

guess there’s no moral issue with 35-year-old homosexual twins getting married to each other, then.

Radical. Not an equivalent to the situation at hand.

 

[Norseman82]

Another thing to consider: how do the parents of the “partner” feel about the situation? It is possible that the OP is being set up for an “ambush” situation.

 

[Norseman82]

The Church’s role then is to be a minority leaven to the rest of society - as was the case in the Early Church before Christendom was established. One cannot be a leaven if one is busy disowning the rest of society starting with our own children

But are we not called to be good leaven? I recall St. Paul using the leaven imagery to talk about the necessity of not using old yeast.