Invitation by Homosexual daughter

[Raxus]

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

That depends, I would think, on context.

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

Present me with a contextual question, then do come back.

 

[Raxus]

Its approved Church practise and so in accord with Church teaching.

What is there to explain?

Link, please?

 

[Raxus]

Just educate yourself on your own faith.

Non-answer. I am asking you.

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

I will. Can you in the meantime summarize their position for me, as you seem to know it?

 

[Raxus]

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.

I didn’t say anything about spite. You’re grasping at straws.

I said that it was to try normalize in their eyes what they consider to be sinful and dangerous.

A reasonable persons would more likely conclude dinners with familial “sinners” are what they have always been

Only if the context were conveniently left out.

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.

A civil union which is actively sinful and dangerous in the eyes of God and the Church.

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.

No, but he certainly didn’t give them the idea that they could keep doing what they weren’t supposed to be doing.

 

[Raxus]

You don’t know what you are talking about and appear to have never researched your faith in this area.

This is not an argument.

I am sorry that you are unable to make prudential judgments

We simply prefer to accept the truth as it is and is taught.

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.

Personal attack, this. Shame on you.

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.

That is your own opinion, uninformed by any teaching of the Church.

Does it?

Yes.

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”?

Not if the relationship itself is spiritually harmful to self and others.

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.

He never told them to keep being drunkards, gluttons and 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.

True is true, even if nobody believes it but God.

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.

God can never love a sinful act. This is basic Catholic teaching.

 

[Raxus]

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

True is true. The Church doesn’t “allow” anything in the secular world, unless you’re suggesting it has the might to force people to behave. The secular world will do what evil it wants, and the Church will fight against that evil in all the ways it can.

 

[Raxus]

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.

Doubtful, given context and the OP has already stated that I am correct.

Sin or no sin, that isn’t the issue.

Incorrect. That is precisely the issue.

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

Then you would be tacitly telling your child that to enter into a sinful lifestyle was ok by you.

The “right” or “wrong” of the relationship or ceremony is secondary.

Incorrect. Right is right, and wrong is wrong.

 

[Demetra]

To the OP, I have to agree with you that it is correct to avoid your daughter’s same sex “wedding”. If confronted with this situation, I would do the same as you. Your daughter grew up in your home and knows your values, morals and religious beliefs. To ask you to participate and affirm her so called marriage is asking you to deny something that is extremely important to your way of life. She must know this and must have an intrinsic understanding as to why you can’t attend. This has nothing to do with love for her either. Respect is a two way street. Perhaps you can show some respect by meeting her new extended family at some point either before or after the wedding. Your daughter can show you respect by not insisting that you betray religious beliefs. Pray, pray, pray!

 

[AdamP88]

I see my post was flagged. Likely by @BlackFriar. Obviously he’s uncomfortable with something I said.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Like I’ve always taught my kids…The devil’s favorite color is grey.

Well hopefully it is your favorite color, too. It seems your world will be pretty grey with an allienated child. At least mine sure would be. I would encourage you to work a little harder at the issue at hand instead of just coming to CAF to look for affirmation of what you have already apparently decided for yourself.

My world would be completely grey without the joy of the healthy relationship I have with my kid. We don’t come close to agreeing on everything or having the same values when it comes to certain issues. But wel also don’t have “grey”. We have bright, warm, sunshine that helps us both through life. I wish the same for you.

 

[AdamP88]

The one where I call out his ad hominem on the OP.

 

[QwertyGirl]

OP was quite snarky to a nice post I took thoughtful time to write, Adam.

You aren’t tolerant of most people who disagree with you. There was nothing non-catholic about my posts. You seem to respond aggressively to anyone who views LGBTQ issues differently than you do.

I typically don’t post any place on CAF unless I feel I have something to offer that can be helpful to the other people here, be they Catholic or not. I do my best to be respectful of the faith. The advice or encouragement I offer typically could be useful to people of any faith. I don’t suggest anyone go against their conscience or the tenants of their faith.

I stand by my point. OP should work really hard to figure out a way to get through this issue without allienating her daughter. I encourage her to do so, and I wish the best for her.

Peace, Adam.

 

[BlackFriar]

Bring yourself up to speed with common knowledge on CAF.
That what the search button is for.

 

[BlackFriar]

When you have something relevant and substantial to say do come back.

 

[BlackFriar]

Nobody is interested in playing with words.

The above statement was:

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

When you can find a source, other than your own authority, that denies this historical fact and teaching do come back.

 

[Paul71]

Again, you either love your kid or you don’t.

But a parent can love his or her adult child without supporting every choice that that child makes.

Just because something makes you uncomfortable doesn’t mean you should automatically reject your kid.

I absolutely agree. I don’t think that anyone has advised the original poster to reject his child. I certainly don’t think that he should.

I get your premise. You are equating pedophilia to homosexuality, in an effort to explain that it is reasonable that everybody has different levels of comfort.

I’m not sure if you do understand my premise, because that’s not what I’m trying to do. I am not trying to equate one behavior with another, nor is my argument concerned with the concept of “comfort.”

What I am trying to say is let’s momentarily set aside what the child’s behavior is. That behavior could be dating an underage girl, dating someone of the same sex, abusing his girlfriend, being rude to his girlfriend, making a poor choice of a potential spouse, or any other behavior we could name that at least some people would consider immoral or problematic to a greater extent or to a lesser extent. .

Let’s set aside the specific behavior, and just assume that it is something that the parent strongly disapproves of, and thinks is very wrong, gravely immoral, and/or very harmful. If we do that, then perhaps you and I may agree at least somewhat on the underlying principles. It seems clear that we agree it is very important for a parent to support his child and to be there for an important event like a wedding ceremony. Perhaps we would also agree that if the child makes a choice that the parent believes is very, very fundamentally wrong and “beyond the pale,” then in that case the parent might reasonably make the difficult choice not to attend the child’s wedding ceremony.

If I’m wrong about what I stated above, then so be it. But if you want to continue telling me why homosexuality is not on the same level as behavior X, Y, or Z, I will just mention now that I don’t think that discussion is relevant to the point I am trying to make. As I have already said, I understand that we don’t agree on the issue of homosexuality. I’m satisfied to agree to disagree on that issue for now.

I am editing my post to add one closing thought: You seem to be arguing in favor of attending the wedding, on the basis that a parent should not alienate his child, and that a parent should be there for the child’s important life events. I think that just about everyone on this thread agrees on those general principles. So when you make that kind of argument, it’s harder for me to see why you are arguing, because it seems that we agree on the general principles that you are promoting. I think it might be more to the point if you would argue over whether same-sex “marriage” is problematic or not. That issue, and not the general principles of how we should treat our children, seems to be at the root of your disagreement with me, Fmarion, and others here. I could be wrong, but that’s how I see it.

 

[Raxus]

Bring yourself up to speed with common knowledge on CAF.

That what the search button is for.

Cop out.

When you have something relevant and substantial to say do come back.

Rude.

Nobody is interested in playing with words.

Deflection.

I’ll consider my argument won and my point made, then. Cheers.

 

[BlackFriar]

BlackFriar:

Bring yourself up to speed with common knowledge on CAF.
That what the search button is for.

Cop out.

When you have something relevant and substantial to say do come back.

Rude.

Nobody is interested in playing with words.

Deflection.

I’ll consider my argument won and my point made, then. Cheers.

???

Invitation by Homosexual daughter Family Life

When you have something relevant and substantial to say do come back.

 

[Fmarion]

He’s tossed around ad hominems but can’t take a well thought and reasoned argument.

 

[Raxus]

When you have something relevant and substantial to say do come back.

You keep saying that if it makes you feel better.