Marrying in to a Catholic family with an openly gay member

[DexUK]

I read the first half of this thread wondering to myself why bother be a Catholic if this is how we are supposed to treat people with SSA.

Thankfully I read the second half of the thread too, and my faith in humanity is being restored.

Every human needs to be treated with dignity, regardless of his sins.

To the OP… marry your sweetheart. Love her and cherish her. Your children, when and if they come alone, are going to encounter the subject of gay people sooner or later. While some are actively hostile to people of faith, clearly your putative brother in law isn’t, so better that they get an understanding of how to deal with a homosexual relative in a loving family environment than a judging harsh segregated one.

I doubt that any of your relatives are going to go for an all out snog-fest on your couch in front of your children, regardless of their sexual orientation, so you have no need to worry. In the incredibly unlikely event that your relatives or relatives-in-law do get jiggy in front of your kids, throw them out of the building, whether they’re man and man, or man and woman, or woman and woman… but I don’t think it’ll happen, so stop looking for artificial impediments to good familial relationships.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Loving the sinner and hating the sin is something that we CANNOT demand of our young children beyond their maturity. My young children learned about sins such as stealing and bullying when they were younger because this taught the lesson about sin on a level they could emotionally grasp. I would never try to explain to my young children the mortal sins of excessive drug use, homosexual sex or what a sex-change operation is. Even though they are reality they are too much for young developing souls.

The homosexual agenda has slowly been infiltrating our culture and gaining acceptance for their lifestyle which is intrinsically disordered. The evidence for acceptance of two homosexuals behaving as a couple in front of young children is** shocking**…and in my opinion would NOT have been the case a short time ago. Years ago if you asked if it was acceptable to shield your children from the homosexual lifestyle the answer would have been a resounding yes. However the slow acceptance of so-called gay marriage, movies with homosexual lovers, the passing of hate crimes legislation has infused all cultures even faithful Catholics trying to raise their children. I keep reading posts here speaking of love and tolerance and even though I know people’s hearts are in the right place I beleive their compassion is misdirected.

Yes Jesus Christ associated with sinners but one important thing is being overlooked: Jesus told them they must “sin no more” and then they followed him. Mary Magdalene stopped being a prostitute, Matthew stopped cheating people as a tax collector. Jesus did not have in his circle of disciples people that were openly living in mortal sin.

Keeping a young child from two men who hug one another and talk about being each other’s “husband” is responsible parenting. As an adult we can and should be kind to all and yes, love the sinner and hate the sin. Our children need to learn tolerance and pray for one another’s sins on a level they can grasp. My young children prayed for people who are bullies, people who tell lies, people who steal things. As they grew older they learned about what abortion really was and what homosexuality really meant. As children mature even more they can grasp what prostitution is, what pornography is, what a sex-change operation is…you see this whole conversation has been twisted to frame parents like me as evil and unaccepting. In reality I am accepting that all of us are sinners and that I am called to LOVE. What is missing is that children are not equipped to learn about all of these things before they are mature enough to grasp it and homosexual affection, even a peck on the cheek kiss can be damaging to them as it presents something intrinsically disordered to them as everyday and normal.

I think that even from the perspective that homosexuality is wrong it would be better to not rip apart his wife’s family and deny the child a relationship with his/her uncle. Why? Because even if the OP does trample on his wife’s wishes, cause this kind of damage to everyone involved, and hurt so many people it will all be for naught when his kid sees a classmate being picked up from school by his two dads, or hears a friend talking about his moms.

Homosexuality is there. It’s a fact of life and unless you plan on homeschooling, never taking your child to the grocery store, a restaurant, or even the movies, or letting them watch or hear any form of media they will be exposed. So instead of trying to bury everyone’s head in the sand and causing his wife and her family pain, why not take the time to figure out an age appropriate way to explain this that is in line with his values and will prepare his child when he/she is faced with homosexuality in the real world at an early age?

 

[mrajax]

All this talk about facing homosexuality. Guess what people, even if you don’t reject a person for being homosexual, it doesn’t mean you have to accept his lifestyle IF he lives a filthy lifestyle. Personally, if I had children, I’d avoid having them spend so much time with an immoral family member who would force his sick view of the world on them. That includes people who are adulterous and living a homosexual lifestyle or anyone who is a satanist/part of a nutjob anti-religion (no. Islam and Jehovah’s witnesses are not anti-religions). With love there needs to be prudence and I don’t want to live in a world where I am forced to accept filth as socially good.

Recently, I found out an old friend of mine turned out to be gay after so many years of him passing as a heterosexual. It flabbergasted me. Does that mean I hate him? No. Does that mean I accept his lifestyle? No. I also happen to have a relative who is transexual and even though we love this relative, we don’t accept their lifestyle as good as face it, they lived a really screwed up life which I will not divulge here. Even though we love them, it doesn’t mean I want my children when I have them to look up to them as a role model. Would Jesus honestly let children near anyone who actively and obstinately lived an immoral life? He called these people out on their actions like He did to the Pharisees and to the Samaritan woman.

Honestly, why would anyone risk letting their child adopt homosexual tendencies? Geez, if my future kid told me he was gay, I wouldn’t reject him but I’d tell him to reconsider things to see if he really is gay and that his ‘gayness’ isn’t just a passing fancy or lust. If he started acting all effeminate, I’d point out (gently) that theway he is acting isn’t the way woman normally act because women don’t wear heav makeup or act all foppish just for the sake of it. It’s being something you are not. Curing ‘homosexuality’ isn’t necessarilly removing homosexual lust so much as instilling pure feelings for the opposite sex as Sigmund Freud would say.

 

[mrajax]

Hmmmm.
Verrrry, very interesting. This is an eye-opener in understanding many of your past posts.

Of course, you do realize that many other adults with the exact same upbringing as you do not feel “damaged” at all by it, but very loved and “ordered”…and feel proud of their parents as wonderful examples.

Therefore, there is a chance your feelings of “damage” comes from something that is not gay-related.

Frankly, how do you know? The poster just told you why they thinks living with homosexuals is damaging because they themselves suffered through it and you tell them that it isn’t so? There are things you don’t say to anyone’s face and that is one of them, especially since we do know children who live with homosexuals do suffer. All straw arguments of gay pedophilia blah blah aside, you have to face the fact that children who in a diffirent enviroment would grow up normal have to grow up and question whether their heterosexual inclinations are right, just as children who grow up and feel that they are homosexual have to face whether their own inclinations are right. Just look at this article to see what I mean: catholicexchange.com/157318/

 

[marymary1975]

Wow I think this is a very difficult situation that requires a lot of thinking, praying.g and discerning. You have two issues on two sides that you need to balance and in both issues there is a but… you want to keep your children away from any implicit message that homosexuality is ok but it is your BL and it would be unfair to push him away and on the other side you have to love the sinner but at the same time hate the sin. Is quite complicayed. The only thing I can suggest is to talk to try to find a happy medium. O have a close childhood friend who came out as a lesbian in adulthood and i struggled a lot with how to handle this issue. What I did was sitting down with my friend and have a conversation with her. I explained to her how I felt and my position over the homosexuality and I also explained to her that still she was my friend and while I disagree with her acts I still considered her my friend. Now, my friend tends to be very respectful of other and their belief, so she never tried to push the issue on me and was very respectful and understanding of my believes. Pretty much we sincerely agreed to disagree on the issue and she remains my friend but just doesn’t pushes the issue, doesn’t bring partners around me and she has never done anything morally objectionable around me. She has come to see my daughter but again never showed up with partners or brought the ossie to my daughter’s attention and tries to respect my faith. Now this case is more difficult because involves family but of you were able to reach an agreement in which each side respected the other would be great. Maybe try to speak with him on a positive compassionate way about your concers. Who knows he may be like my friend and be happy to respect your believes.

 

[ephesians4]

My fiancée expressed that his personality is currently more along the lines of the radical gay rights activist-type.

I would be more concerned about this than the fact he is a sinner which we all in fact are - because frankly when people can join in the witch-hunt on the side of the majority and feel like a brave hero for throwing stones, that is what they will tend to do. You should be watchful of a “gay rights activist” on your doorstep - possibly as close to your spouse as you are, if you wish to run a good Christian household safe from interference or pro-active Christianophobia.

You love who you love, but I would be saying the same thing for “1950s racist” as the current strain of “gay rights activist” - the same tropes about inherent evil, mental inferiority, and the need for you to watch your mouth are used by both. Don’t stand for the slightest nonsense or interference from day minus one, don’t brook even a diaphanous sense of persecution or prejudice - at least if you make that stand the first time you are given it, you will see your fiancee’s reaction.

 

[PaulinVA]

I abhor the six words, “Love the sinner, hate the sin”.

Six words to describe the Church’s position of how to deal with people with same sex attraction, and one of them is hate.

I know the statement is theologically correct, but is a PR disaster. We have to come up with something better.

 

[dshix]

I abhor the six words, “Love the sinner, hate the sin”.

Six words to describe the Church’s position of how to deal with people with same sex attraction, and one of them is hate.

I know the statement is theologically correct, but is a PR disaster. We have to come up with something better.

I don’t see anything wrong with “love the sinner, hate the sin.” What negative things has it brought to the Church? The problems come from people misunderstanding it, not doing it.

 

[PaulinVA]

I don’t see anything wrong with “love the sinner, hate the sin.” What negative things has it brought to the Church? The problems come from people misunderstanding it, not doing it.

Well, if our goal is to convert people, to successfully stand our ground in the culture wars where people call us hateful bigots, it’s probably not a good idea to give them ammunition.

It’s all about perception. Yes, it’s true that we hate the sin. But we can put in in a different way that perhaps opens people to dialogue instead of shutting down dialogue.

 

[dshix]

Well, if our goal is to convert people, to successfully stand our ground in the culture wars where people call us hateful bigots, it’s probably not a good idea to give them ammunition.

It’s all about perception. Yes, it’s true that we hate the sin. But we can put in in a different way that perhaps opens people to dialogue instead of shutting down dialogue.

Heh, you can put it into different words if you feel like it, but that doesn’t change the concept.

 

[90Domer]

I, too, married into a family with an openly SSA family member. First off, I think it is great that you are thinking about this issue as a potential problem. Hopefully it will not cause a rift and your desire to stay close to the Catholic faith will be respected.

In my case, my in-laws started “working” on me and my husband in an attempt to change our thinking. First it was subtle, then it was more direct to where it appeared to be bullying. (My FIL was much more vocal in his desire to win us over to his side.) He told us that if we didn’t accept all the behaviors of said person, then we didn’t accept him at all. No middle ground. I have to admit that I started to get squishy on my views given the pressure from in-laws coupled with a very liberal parish that was exposing me and hubby to scandal. Granted we only saw this in retrospect. It was through the marriage prep ministry we joined at our present church that helped form both of us better.

After we moved from said parish and out of the diocese, my husband learned more about the Catholic teachings and reinforced my original feelings on the subject (SSA people are called to be chaste, etc.). Most importantly, he learned what scandal was. While I knew what it was and could not put a name to it, we both learned how some of our actions were causing scandal. When it came time for our son to start figuring out what relationships were, we made several difficult decisions. The biggest was that we could not stay at MIL’s apartment (FIL was deceased at this point) if she allowed BIL and partner to share a room…and a bed. And there was no using the two uncles moniker. MIL would refer to them as married, etc. and we had to tell her that such talk was not permitted around our son (he has special needs, so we had a more difficult time teaching him social norms).

And yes, this did not go over well. However, we wanted our son to be very well formed in the faith before exposing him the concept of SSA. And I agree with Monicad that kids do pick up subtle hints bit by bit. Heck, if I was getting squishy after 16 years of Catholic education and having an orthodox priest for an uncle, I was sure my kiddo could be influenced.

So I want you to know that you are not alone. And I think you concerns are very valid. Pray that you and your future wife can come to a mutual understanding before you have children. God bless.

 

[Moore11]

I abhor the six words, “Love the sinner, hate the sin”.

Six words to describe the Church’s position of how to deal with people with same sex attraction, and one of them is hate.

I know the statement is theologically correct, but is a PR disaster. We have to come up with something better.

“love the sinner, gently disagree with the sin?”

The Church is not a PR machine and many of it’s problems right now can be traced to this idea of wording something gently or differently so as to meekly whisper the Gospel so we don’t wake anyone up.

We so often shy away from evil. As if evil is some character from Harry Potter that we are so intimidated by that we dare not speak it’s name.
Love the sinner, HATE the sin. HATE HATE HATE. I have no problem with hating any sin.

If you shy away from the word “hate” then you should apply the same principles to the other side of the sentence. Just like in Math. So if you tone hate to dislike you have to tone Love to like. etc.

So see how silly playing the semantic game so as not to offend evil is?

Pretty soon this relativistic attitude comes up with and equalizer.

Tolerate the sinner, tolerate the sin.

There, now the equation is balanced and the only one offended is God.

 

[dshix]

“love the sinner, gently disagree with the sin?”

The Church is not a PR machine and many of it’s problems right now can be traced to this idea of wording something gently or differently so as to meekly whisper the Gospel so we don’t wake anyone up.

We so often shy away from evil. As if evil is some character from Harry Potter that we are so intimidated by that we dare not speak it’s name.
Love the sinner, HATE the sin. HATE HATE HATE. I have no problem with hating any sin.

If you shy away from the word “hate” then you should apply the same principles to the other side of the sentence. Just like in Math. So if you tone hate to dislike you have to tone Love to like. etc.

So see how silly playing the semantic game so as not to offend evil is?

Pretty soon this relativistic attitude comes up with and equalizer.

Tolerate the sinner, tolerate the sin.

There, now the equation is balanced and the only one offended is God.

 

[PaulinVA]

The Church is not a PR machine and many of it’s problems right now can be traced to this idea of wording something gently or differently so as to meekly whisper the Gospel so we don’t wake anyone up.

The Church can craft a message that is the Truth and is also designed to be accepted. It needs to be more aware of how it says things.

We so often shy away from evil. As if evil is some character from Harry Potter that we are so intimidated by that we dare not speak it’s name.
Love the sinner, HATE the sin. HATE HATE HATE. I have no problem with hating any sin.

I agree, but, phrasing it that way plays right into the people who want to call us hateful bigots. Being called a hateful bigot is not a badge of honor - it’s a failure to properly preach our Gospel of love.

Tolerate the sinner, tolerate the sin.
There, now the equation is balanced and the only one offended is God.

Chesterton said that tolerance is the virtue of the man without principals.

You have taken this to absurdity, knowing that it is not at all what I meant.

I could just as easily condemn you for preaching nothing but HATE HATE HATE and that wouldn’t be true, either.

There has to be a better way to explain the Church’s position to people with same sex attraction other than, “The Church loves you, but hates what you do”. Now I know the Churches hates all sin, but for a person with SSA, what they do Icould be who they are, so the Church is really saying, “I love you, but I really hate you.”

 

[Moore11]

PaulinVA;10378760]The Church can craft a message that is the Truth and is also designed to be accepted. It needs to be more aware of how it says things.

Oh, you presume to tell the Church how it should phrase things? Ok, how do you think the Church shuold phrase it. Please, tell me how you think the phrase you abhor should be changed. Perhaps, Love the sinner abhor the sin?"

I agree, but, phrasing it that way plays right into the people who want to call us hateful bigots. Being called a hateful bigot is not a badge of honor - it’s a failure to properly preach our Gospel of love.

So wait, all some in the world have to do is call you a hateful bigot and you will change your view? Or at least your language?

Chesterton said that tolerance is the virtue of the man without principals.

I have no idea what this quote has to do with the point I made.

You have taken this to absurdity, knowing that it is not at all what I meant.

To abhor a phrase some use to explain how we do not condemn the person but rather the sin is absurd. Tell me sir, do you think God expects us to hate?

I could just as easily condemn you for preaching nothing but HATE HATE HATE and that wouldn’t be true, either.

Hmmmm no you could not. In the phrase Love the sinner hate the sin for you to say ALL I do is hate is ignoring the first half of the equation we talked about before.

There has to be a better way to explain the Church’s position to people with same sex attraction other than, “The Church loves you, but hates what you do”. Now I know the Churches hates all sin, but for a person with SSA, what they do Icould be who they are, so the Church is really saying, "I love you, but I really hate you.

I absolutely do not understand this view. Of course the Church (God and what is holy) loves you and hates your sin. Any sin. Not just this sin.
If a person is identifying what they do and defining who they are by their sexual attraction and acting on it with justification then of course. If an adulterer goes around identifying themselves by their sexual sin we should not feel like we have to compromise our words and the truth, (because that is what you do when you compromise words)
So if someone says I am an adulterer, why are you so bigoted toward me and we respond with we love you but hate what you are doing then we are preaching the gospel. Anything less than that is exactly what the other side wants us to do.

I am a hateful bigot my friend. I hate sin and I am bigoted toward evil.
Proudly.

There is nothing holy and not evil about a certain reproductive organ entering a certain digestive organ. Homosexuality is not the good singer on Glee, or the funny guy on a sitcom, or a great fashion designer. Homosexuality is a unhealthful, unholy, evil, destructive act. SSA can be morally neutral if it is not lustful. Much like I can like readheads even though my wife is a brunette. Acting on it and having intercourse outside of my marriage is not the definition of who I am nor is it something we should shy away from saying we hate so as not to offend.

 

[Michaela1]

I agree with SonCatcher that you should reconsider and possibly not marry this woman. Marriage today is hard enough, but having to enter into marriage with such strong concerns as you have regarding your fiancee’s openly gay relative, is not a good thing at all. It doesn’t matter whether anyone here judges your feelings as being right or wrong. What matters is that your feelings about this are very strong and they should be considered a red flag for you - a warning sign that entering into this family through marriage would likely be very uncomfortable for you. Consider postponing the wedding indefinitely and praying for guidance.

 

[ephesians4]

The Church can craft a message that is the Truth and is also designed to be accepted. It needs to be more aware of how it says things.

I agree, but, phrasing it that way plays right into the people who want to call us hateful bigots. Being called a hateful bigot is not a badge of honor - it’s a failure to properly preach our Gospel of love.

Chesterton said that tolerance is the virtue of the man without principals.

You have taken this to absurdity, knowing that it is not at all what I meant.

I could just as easily condemn you for preaching nothing but HATE HATE HATE and that wouldn’t be true, either.

There has to be a better way to explain the Church’s position to people with same sex attraction other than, “The Church loves you, but hates what you do”. Now I know the Churches hates all sin, but for a person with SSA, what they do could be who they are, so the Church is really saying, “I love you, but I really hate you.”

Haha - sorry, but if you as a normal couple told your priest that what you prefer sexually is “who you are” you would quite likely be told this was not a good thing, and quite rightly, too. That’s a position to climb down from for one’s own good, if anything.

Besides which, the amount of hate homosexuals perceive they do or do not get from the church at the moment is almost irrelevant, as I have discovered.

There are some who are at war with Christianity, and that is not necessarily “homosexuals” - if you are a Christian you will be slandered as a monstrous homophobe whether you have ever mentioned/cared about other people’s homosexuality or not - because that is how they hope to make an evil out of God.

You can feed the beast and hope it stays away from your door if you like, but it will not work. Sorry, but sometimes one must man the barricades.

Figuratively speaking, of course. No need to be combative - personal integrity in Christianity will more than suffice.

 

[PaulinVA]

Oh, you presume to tell the Church how it should phrase things? Ok, how do you think the Church should phrase it. Please, tell me how you think the phrase you abhor should be changed. Perhaps, Love the sinner abhor the sin?"

I hope you didn’t mean this to come out as snarky as it sounds. How about a simple “Love the sinner, not the sin”

So wait, all some in the world have to do is call you a hateful bigot and you will change your view? Or at least your language?

When someone calls you a hateful bigot, they are not receptive to your message. Your message can stay the same, but can be delivered differently.

To abhor a phrase some use to explain how we do not condemn the person but rather the sin is absurd. Tell me sir, do you think God expects us to hate?

EXACTLY! God does not expect us to hate. So, why use hate in the explanation of how the Church views people with SSA?

If a person is identifying what they do and defining who they are by their sexual attraction and acting on it with justification then of course.

I think it’s already been established that people with SSA that are living the “gay lifestyle” do, indeed, identify themselves by their sexual attraction. So, when you say that you hate that lifestyle, you have said you hate them. Great.

There is nothing holy and not evil about a certain reproductive organ entering a certain digestive organ. Homosexuality is not the good singer on Glee, or the funny guy on a sitcom, or a great fashion designer. Homosexuality is a unhealthful, unholy, evil, destructive act. SSA can be morally neutral if it is not lustful. Much like I can like readheads even though my wife is a brunette. Acting on it and having intercourse outside of my marriage is not the definition of who I am nor is it something we should shy away from saying we hate so as not to offend.

Okay, you can continue being a hateful bigot. I share your views of homosexual acts, but I would like for the Church to be able to draw in people with SSA and convince them to live the chaste and celibate life God desires of them.

One would think that to do that, you need to find a way to preach love and not hate.

 

[PaulinVA]

Dear PaulinVA,

God bless you for being passionate about wanting to reach out in better ways to the gay community. However this part of your post really jumped out at me. I am certain that we are not allowed to express ourselves liie this, please be careful I would hate to see you suspended by a moderator. God bless.

Thanks for your concern. I was responding to something the poster said that I did not quote - I guess I lost something by not doing that. He said:

“I am a hateful bigot my friend. I hate sin and I am bigoted toward evil.
Proudly.”

I would never call someone a hateful bigot on my own. Shows how cutting up a post and responding to it has it’s hazards.

 

[Moore11]

Thanks for your concern. I was responding to something the poster said that I did not quote - I guess I lost something by not doing that. He said:

I would never call someone a hateful bigot on my own. Shows how cutting up a post and responding to it has it’s hazards.

Perhaps before being so concerned about the Church’s semantics and gettting misunderstood in the arena of ideas you should make sure you have your own wording correct.

I’m just kidding. I did not take it in a bad way and I understood what you were saying.

The reason I disagree with you is because words mean things. And too often in the Christian world we let others dictate the terms, words, and definitions we use. We have yet to realize just how badly this affects our message. We are absolutly getting killed in the abortion debate, in the marriage debate and in just about every anti christian debate and issue there is. And one of the reasons for this is that we allow the enemy to dictate the battlefield and the terms we use. We give up without a fight and lose a rigged game. It happens all the time.
Admittedly I am a tell it like it is kind of guy. I have many discussions with gays in my own family and acquaintances. I do not shy away from talking about things. Sometimes with issues like homosexual marriages, and abortion this kind of approach can be beneficial. Sometimes as you pointed out it cannot.
If you use the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin” then you better be able to explain it theologically. And you better be in a situation that you can speak the truth. If you cannot explain why that sentence is true in a Christian manner then you have no business talking to the person you are saying that to anyway.
The problem here is that you said that you abhored (hated) that phrase and are taking the position that those who use it are wrong. But you fail to understand that many people respond to many different approaches. Your view of “loving people to Christ” is valid for many people. But completely useless to others. Same could be said for a more “in your face” approach. There is no catch all approach and that is why it is a case by case basis. Some people need to hear that there are things which we hate. Some may be pushed farther away. But if I dictate to you the parameters in which you can make a point I will always have the upper hand.
Early martyrs could have changed their words, softened them, realized that the words they spoke were counter cultural, insensitive and “bigoted” to some.

For every Mother Theresa or “Little flower” there is a St Paul, or John the baptist. Both views are valid and both spread the Christian message.

And so to make both of ourselves equal in vulnerability to a moderator. Would you mind if I called you “Little Flower” from now on?
Just kidding.