Lesbian "marriage"

[chrysostim83]

DOShea,

The question may very well be “teenage,” but it’s a shame you’re not at all interested in conceptual analysis. The reason I ask them is to get a tad more clarity on the idea of “celebrating” a “deed”—I don’t actually have any intention of drawing practical conclusions from them (e.g., “Tommy and Jim are getting married and having a reception after; since I’m Catholic, I’ll tell them they’re sinners by not going to the wedding, and I’ll tell them they’re friends by drinking with them after.”)

This kind of clarity in necessary because there are many ways of construing actions. You brought out a lose-lose description, and above I brought out a win-win description. If we had any kind of clarity on where Catholics should stand with regard to “celebrating” same-sex “marriages,” it would be possible to decide which description is correct.

 

[camerong]

DOShea,

The question may very well be “teenage,” but it’s a shame you’re not at all interested in conceptual analysis. The reason I ask them is to get a tad more clarity on the idea of “celebrating” a “deed”—I don’t actually have any intention of drawing practical conclusions from them (e.g., “Tommy and Jim are getting married and having a reception after; since I’m Catholic, I’ll tell them they’re sinners by not going to the wedding, and I’ll tell them they’re friends by drinking with them after.”)

This kind of clarity in necessary because there are many ways of construing actions. You brought out a lose-lose description, and above I brought out a win-win description. If we had any kind of clarity on where Catholics should stand with regard to “celebrating” same-sex “marriages,” it would be possible to decide which description is correct.

Looking at this systematically, there are two distinct dangers of attending a sinful occasion. One, you can be seen as supporting it, by whomever, which has many evils in itself, such as that causes others to confuse the elements of our doctrines, makes Catholics to appear as hypocritical, encourages sin in others (“if Bob is here, and he’s a super Catholic, that must mean its ok”) etc. The second danger is that one is morally culpable (i.e. is sinning) by attending.

Applying the first danger to a reception after the ceremony, it seems the dangers are similar. The purpose, presumably, of a reception is a celebration of the ceremony–that is certainly the case in straight marriages, at least. The newlyweds are the guests of honor. Thus, the ceremony “honors” the guest. The attendant dangers of being seen at such an occasion are equally present.

Now, one might say, we should not do all things for appearances. Perhaps our duty to love the couple in this situation is more important than the duty to uphold a righteous image–surely this is often the case. So the next question is, is the act of attending itself sinful? For if it is, then attending cannot be both sinful and loving (we are called to treat our neighbor as we would wish to be treated; we should not wish anyone to sin on our account.)

Surely we can sin in an act, even if we do not intend it to be a sin (but intend to act). For instance, if I serve or take communion at a non-Catholic church, I am sining because I am acting in communion with a church that is not my own, not the true Church. This is true even if I do not intend the act to be a sin, and even if I intend the act to glorify God.

I think the same thing applies to attending an illicit ceremony, or a reception afterwards. We are symbolically expressing our solidarity with the lesbian couple and adding our voice to the celebration of the event, just as someone who attends a heterosexual wedding reception is adding to the celebration of the event–imagine a wedding reception where no one attends but the couple. So, just as we can symbolically commit a sin by acting in communion with a church that is not our own, we can also symbolically commit a sin by expressing solidarity with, and adding to the celebration of, an illicit act.

This notwithstanding, as others noted above, we have a great duty to avoid even the temptation or means to sin. Christ said it would be better to cut off our hand than allow it to be a means towards sin. If there ever was a tempting situation, surely a celebration of sinful activity is one. It is so easy to adopt the group mentality and enjoy the wedding while at a reception, if for no other reason but to fit in. Maybe the Catholic in question is extremely firm in his or her faith and convictions, and this is not a problem; but to risk it, merely to show love to the people committing the sin, seems like a reckless choice.

Further, it remains to be shown that attending would actually be loving. If I were lost down the path of sexual sin, would I want someone coming to my reception, acting as if everything were ok? Or would I want someone to abstain completely, causing me to think about why the person chose not to show up? With an unclear at best benefit, and a real temptation to sin at the least, attending such a reception does not seem like a good choice for a Catholic.

 

[kage_ar]

When Western Culture finally completely collosapes the epitah on the tombstone will read “They were Tolerant”

Amen, amen - preach it brother.

Sorry, my pre-convert side slips out sometimes and I have to start Amening.

 

[chrysostim83]

Thanks for the reasoned response, camerong!

 

[kage_ar]

A very nice, reasoned response, camerong. Thank you.

(Sometime or other I’ll get around to asking why Catholics don’t have a duty to disrupt gay weddings. But it would inappropriate to ask that question here.)

Because we are called to modesty and to respect other people.

**2521 **Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

**1832 **The *fruits *of the Spirit are perfections that the Holy Spirit forms in us as the first fruits of eternal glory. The tradition of the Church lists twelve of them: “charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity.”

 

[chrysostim83]

Ooops! Should have edited my remark sooner. Please disregard the question entirely.

 

[Scottgun]

To sum up:

1. Keep the refusal simple.
2. Attendance would constitute an unacceptable amount of cooperation with evil. Don’t do it.
3. All Catholics should familiarize themselves with Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons. In short, states (even thoroughly secularized ones) have a duty to protect traditional marriage, and that attempts to end run around this with “civil unions” or what not are no go. In short, Catholics do not get to punt on this one. Note this part:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

 

[estesbob]

To sum up:

1. Keep the refusal simple.
2. Attendance would constitute an unacceptable amount of cooperation with evil. Don’t do it.
3. All Catholics should familiarize themselves with Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons. In short, states (even thoroughly secularized ones) have a duty to protect traditional marriage, and that attempts to end run around this with “civil unions” or what not are no go. In short, Catholics do not get to punt on this one. Note this part:

Nice Summary!

 

[mandateman]

It seems that there is some difficulty for people to understand why the attendance of any event means at minimum tacit approval of the event.

This is the basis for why it was wrong for a catholic to attend services of other religions. It is not that we worry that the catholic will be converted. It is that a catholics presence lend support and credibility to the event. When a person takes their private sins out and converts them to public sins then they must be treated as public sinners.

I had a friend who allowed his wife to sleep with other men. Finally they had a party and announced this to all of their friends and they asked their friends not to worry when they saw his wife with the other men. From that day I could no longer be a friend. While there sin which we all knew about was basically private we minded our own business. But once they went public we were forced to react to their now public scandal. We have never spoken since.

Your son is living common law with his girlfriend and has lost his job and comes to you asking for some finacial help. You cannot support their sin. You must refuse. You could invite him to move home alone but you become involved with the sin of another whenever you assist them or support them or advise them or just comply to their requests. Your teenager goes out every friday and comes home intoxicated or under the influence of drugs or doesnt come home because he spent the night at his girlfriends. It s time to see about his moving out. Or changing his life. We can be guilty of even mortal sin from just assisting them to continue. Tough choices but even one saint stated that the reason most woman are sent to hell is from over love of their families.

They protect them from justice, lie about them blame others for their bad behavior and support them and become accomplices in their sin.

Your answer is just send back a note and say you cannot attend. If pressured then you must explain that you are catholic and it is not an acceptable event for a catholic to attend. If still pressured you can tell them that you are forbidden from attending any immoral or intrinsically evil events. Somewhere in there they will get the message.

 

[chrysostim83]

For some reason I find this issue extremely upsetting, even though I know same-sex marriage is out of the question and that same-sex sexual relations are intrinsically evil.

Part of my problem comes from the premise that “attendance implies approval.” This idea inflates the symbolic value of events and totally ignores other possible reasons for having events at all. In particular, don’t we have receptions simply because that’s what one does after weddings? So isn’t it licit to attend an event after the fact and not in celebration of the fact?

Furthermore, the idea of sending messages to people is troublesome. First, it is supremely arrogant to think that your duty is to teach others. And second, it is unlikely that mere non-attendance teaches the right lesson: the newly “weds” are more likely to interpret your absence as disapproval of them… period. That’s not a problem, I guess, if you’re only friends, but what happens when a parent publicly expresses disapproval of a child? How likely are they to become estranged?

So in arguing the point that Catholics cannot attend gay weddings or wedding receptions, it’s best to keep your eye on the ball, where the ball is complicity in evil. We should forget about “symbolic acts” and “teaching lessons,” and work toward solutions that don’t burn any bridges.

 

[fix]

For some reason I find this issue extremely upsetting, even though I know same-sex marriage is out of the question and that same-sex sexual relations are intrinsically evil.

Part of my problem comes from the premise that “attendance implies approval.” This idea inflates the symbolic value of events and totally ignores other possible reasons for having events at all. In particular, don’t we have receptions simply because that’s what one does after weddings? So isn’t it licit to attend an event after the fact and not in celebration of the fact?

Furthermore, the idea of sending messages to people is troublesome. First, it is supremely arrogant to think that your duty is to teach others. And second, it is unlikely that mere non-attendance teaches the right lesson: the newly “weds” are more likely to interpret your absence as disapproval of them… period. That’s not a problem, I guess, if you’re only friends, but what happens when a parent publicly expresses disapproval of a child? How likely are they to become estranged?

So in arguing the point that Catholics cannot attend gay weddings or wedding receptions, it’s best to keep your eye on the ball, where the ball is complicity in evil. We should forget about “symbolic acts” and “teaching lessons,” and work toward solutions that don’t burn any bridges.

May I ask how one attends a celebration, yet does not celebrate? Do you stand around and congratulate? Do you explain you oppose this grave sin, but just wanted to “support” the person?

The entire enterprise is about celebrating something that should not be celebrated. What is it you would do when you would go there?

 

[chrysostim83]

Off the top of my head: Show up late, leave early, avoid food and drink, stay off the dance floor, dress more casually than the occasion would ordinarily require, and refrain from expressing anything about the “marriage.” Or you could argue: By skipping the “wedding” ceremony, you’ve already opted out of celebrating.

All I’m really trying to do is to clean up some of the ideas above (in order to figure out why they bother me). The OP was given three arguments against attending the “wedding”/reception: one was from complicity in evil, another from the symbolic value of action, and the third from the teaching or protesting angle. The first argument seems acceptable, but only if it is taken with tacit understanding that, when one is close enough to one of the “marrying” parties, other considerations apply as well. In particular, a parent might, depending on what sort of relationship they have with their son or daughter, be ill advised to stay away altogether—in which case, some kind of attendance at the reception (but, of course, not at the “marriage”) would be possible, even if only along the lines I indicated above. As for the other arguments, there’s nothing heinously evil in rejecting them, especially since a perfectly good argument is already in place.

Sorry for wasting everyone’s time by thinking aloud in a public forum.

 

[Awful_Things]

Part of my problem comes from the premise that “attendance implies approval.”

It does. That’s why wedding couples write thank you notes to those who signed the guest registry. They certainly aren’t thanking you for eating the food they bought. They are having a celebration of their arrangement, and you helped them celebrate wih your presence.

This idea inflates the symbolic value of events and totally ignores other possible reasons for having events at all. In particular, don’t we have receptions simply because that’s what one does after weddings? So isn’t it licit to attend an event after the fact and not in celebration of the fact?

Exactly, and married couples have intercourse on their wedding night because that just “what one does after a wedding.” Rather, the intercourse on a wedding night has a symbolic value, as does the reception. Because it is out of place to congratulate people during a ceremony, it is reserved for the reception. This is the reason everyone claps when the couple walks in. In addition, the reception is the couple’s way of thanking their guests and supporters. If you come to accept that thanks, you are a supporter. If you don’t come for that reason, you’re a wedding crasher and need to stop enjoying food and drink that isn’t intended for you.

Furthermore, the idea of sending messages to people is troublesome. First, it is supremely arrogant to think that your duty is to teach others.

Why is it arrogant. The Bible tells us that it is our duty to teach others. Is the Holy Spirit in error? Are we arrogant for following God’s instructions?

And second, it is unlikely that mere non-attendance teaches the right lesson: the newly “weds” are more likely to interpret your absence as disapproval of them… period. That’s not a problem, I guess, if you’re only friends, but what happens when a parent publicly expresses disapproval of a child? How likely are they to become estranged?

The Bible covers this one, too. Christ came, not to bring peace on Earth, but a sword. If we stand up for righteousness, there is a great possibility it will cause a riff with family who chose to reject Christ’s teachings. Is that our fault fo following truth, or theirs for rejecting it? When Christ allowed his followers to become “estranged” in John 6 because they wouldn’t follow the hard teachings, was that also a “problem”?

So in arguing the point that Catholics cannot attend gay weddings or wedding receptions, it’s best to keep your eye on the ball, where the ball is complicity in evil. We should forget about “symbolic acts” and “teaching lessons,” and work toward solutions that don’t burn any bridges.

Please provide a solution to obvious evil which does not involve a teaching lesson. Prayer, I assume, but would you stop there?

 

[camerong]

I had a friend who allowed his wife to sleep with other men.

I’m sorry to hijack briefly, but this is the saddest thing I have seen yet on this forum. I nearly cried.

I think the only thing confusing this issue is if one, at some level, does not see lesbian marriage as all that bad. Its an easy view point to have–people who love each other, want to express their love and devotion for each other, and want to commit to each other, and who likely cannot (IMO) become straight so they have no hope of a real marriage, are very sympathetic. It is easy to see lesbian weddings as a kind of unavoidable sin, minor because of the really sorrowful plight of someone who can never be attracted to the opposite sex.

But if we admit to ourselves that it is, in fact, a sin it is for same-sex couples to marry, it becomes clear that attending is also a sin. It is in a serious manner that I ask the question–would you attend a ceremony celebrating an abortion? It is true that abortions are very probably worse (if such a thing can be said) than same-sex marriages. But it is not the degree of badness of the event that makes it wrong for us to attend. If attendance at an event associated with a sin is itself sinful, it does not matter how sinful the event is, because minor sins are still sins. Your attendance to a same-sex wedding reception would be less grave than attending a ceremony celebrating an abortion, just as my lusting for a moment after another woman is less grave than me sleeping with her; but they are both wrong and, if we were acting in Christ, we would do our best to avoid them.

 

[chain]

not based at all in theology. I would not go to the wedding. However I would consider going to the reception.

There are several sins here. One is essentially a sacrilege - defiling a sacrament. Associated with that is a scandal (making other’s think the first action is acceptable). Finally there is sin is sexual activity outside of marriage.

I do not believe there is a sin for them to love each other, support each other, to live together, to share their lives together. As such I do not know, but I suspect I could celebrate those aspects of their relationship and commitment to each other.

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

 

[fix]

I do not believe there is a sin for them to love each other, support each other, to live together, to share their lives together. As such I do not know, but I suspect I could celebrate those aspects of their relationship and commitment to each other.

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Not saying I agree with you here, but would like to know how you separate those listed items from the “marriage” celebration? The entire notion of marriage is not what you listed.

 

[chrysostim83]

Awful Things:

If you tried to sympathise with my view for 5 minutes, you would probably see your way through your first two objections. (Hint: if you go to the reception, don’t sign the registry, don’t drink, and don’t clap for the newly “weds.”) The symbolic value of one’s attendance at the reception is conventional and can be altered when this is necessary and agreeable to everyone concerned.

For your next objection, I would say the Bible doesn’t require us to teach continually. Isn’t there a term for someone who goes around “correcting” everybody? Why is such a person universally hated? Isn’t it because they come off as arrogant? Isn’t there an asymmetric power relation between teacher and student so that when someone behaves as a teacher they are belittling the people around them?

Next, you wouldn’t have bothered with your next point if you had tried to sympathise with my side. (Hint: is the estrangement strictly necessary?)

Finally, I admit it could very well be impossible to avoid teaching lessons, but that doesn’t mean teaching has to be the direct aim of every action. And that doesn’t mean that teaching lessons is a line a argument that needs to be insisted on.

(Last post, I swear)

 

[gearhead]

Part of my problem comes from the premise that “attendance implies approval.” This idea inflates the symbolic value of events and totally ignores other possible reasons for having events at all. In particular, don’t we have receptions simply because that’s what one does after weddings? So isn’t it licit to attend an event after the fact and not in celebration of the fact?

Furthermore, the idea of sending messages to people is troublesome. First, it is supremely arrogant to think that your duty is to teach others. And second, it is unlikely that mere non-attendance teaches the right lesson: the newly “weds” are more likely to interpret your absence as disapproval of them… period. That’s not a problem, I guess, if you’re only friends, but what happens when a parent publicly expresses disapproval of a child? How likely are they to become estranged?

I disagree with the idea that “attendance implies approval”.

I attended mass with my wife this past Sunday, but this doesn’t mean that I agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church; in fact, I consider some of them to be deeply harmful. I went because mass is important to my wife and my wife is important to me.

To the OP: if you stay away, be aware what it will communicate about how much you value the couple relative to how much you value your religion’s rules. Depending on how close you are to the couple, simple attendance at their wedding can be seen as an expression of love. By the same token, lack of attendance can be taken as a sign of lack of love.

 

[Dale_M]

I disagree with the idea that “attendance implies approval”.

I attended mass with my wife this past Sunday, but this doesn’t mean that I agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church; in fact, I consider some of them to be deeply harmful. I went because mass is important to my wife and my wife is important to me.

I agree. Simply attending a Hindu service or a Muslim service, or Jewish service doesn’t mean you accept those religious views. Rather, attendance shows your respect for those who invited you.

 

[chain]

It has been a long time since I actually attended a wedding, and my religious beliefs have changed considerably since then. If I applied them constantly with attended weddings, I would probably need to stop going to most weddings altogether, including Catholic ones.

In this day and age, it is rare for a young couple to be open to life - which is a core part of marriage. Knowing they contracept, and they are not open to life (that they fully intend to only have ONLY 1 (maybe 2) children) - how can I celebrate a marriage that I know is not really one, that I know has flaws from inception. At best I can hope as their “marriage” falls apart due to their dis-unity, they turn to God and find out what a marriage actually is.

So I have the option of attending, supporting the shadow of a relationship they are starting, and praying for them - or not attending, knowing they really are going to be needing that support and those prayers.