Opinions needed

[Island_Oak]

fix:

The sin of the pharisees was hypocrisy. They pretended to be devout, but were not. Christ told the people to do EXACTLY what the pahrisees tell you to do, but do not act as they do.

Interesting insight, fix. Perhaps relevant to the comment from our highly-judgmental new (4 posts) friend from NJ (single, 41 year old man with so many good friends rescued from “the life”) that the topic of this thread touched a nerve.

 

[katherine2]

do you attend parties of people who are divorced and re-married? People who are miserly towards the poor? People who do not fully honor their mother and father? people who use artifical contraception?

 

[fix]

katherine2:

do you attend parties of people who are divorced and re-married? People who are miserly towards the poor? People who do not fully honor their mother and father? people who use artifical contraception?

If they are notorius and public I would not. If a couple is president of local planned parenthood, for example, I would not. If they advocated contraception publicly I would not. If they spoke against the poor I would not. The “gay” couple in this story are public with their scandal.

 

[debbie_m]

My advice is don’t go to the party. I would also say the same goes for not visiting homes of people who are cohabitating. Going to their home is like “pretending” that this lifestyle is okay – “let’s play house.” Their home is a public sign of their sin.

By all means have them over to your place, go out for dinner, attend parties elsewhere or whatever. Of course, we should always be first and foremost concerned about their salvation and they need to know that we love them – however, they also need to know that what they are doing is wrong and harmful to them.

If they are very clear on your disapproval and still want to be friends then by all means continue a relationship, always praying for their conversion and help from the Holy Spirit to guide you in bringing them to Christ.

This isn’t to be mean. Just politely decline the invitation that’s all – it’s not appropriate at that moment to get into the reason why or anything.

God bless.

 

[katherine2]

fix:

If they are notorius and public I would not. If a couple is president of local planned parenthood, for example, I would not. If they advocated contraception publicly I would not. If they spoke against the poor I would not. The “gay” couple in this story are public with their scandal.

The only information we have is that friends of 30+ years are aware of this couple’s homosexuality. If “public” means something that long term friends are aware of, your examples seem to understate the situation. Juliet(name removed by moderator) did not assert oen of the couple was president of a gay rights group, or said anything in particular about homosexuality.

I know people who, after years of friendship, they’ve let drop once or twice that “they are planning a family” and are going off contraception, or have indicated miserliness towars teh power, without making newspaper worthy statements.

 

[fix]

katherine2:

The only information we have is that friends of 30+ years are aware of this couple’s homosexuality. If “public” means something that long term friends are aware of, your examples seem to understate the situation. Juliet(name removed by moderator) did not assert oen of the couple was president of a gay rights group, or said anything in particular about homosexuality.

I know people who, after years of friendship, they’ve let drop once or twice that “they are planning a family” and are going off contraception, or have indicated miserliness towars teh power, without making newspaper worthy statements.

If it is public knowledge, then one should not attend. Even if there is an appearance of scandal, one should not attend. Let us not be intentionally ignorant or pretend we do not know that two people are living in sin if we have knowledge of it.

 

[Charlemagne]

BLB_Oregon:

He told the Pharisees that “tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the Kingdom of Heaven before you.” He asked a woman whom he knew to have had five husbands and to be currently living with a man not her husband to draw water for him to drink. He engaged her in conversation–and not to bawl her out for how she was conducting her life, but to tell her there was something better to life than she imagined. He went to the house of Zacheus the tax collector to dine. His conduct on the Sabbath scandalized many in his faith. The list, of course, goes on and on, and in front of the Sanhedrin it did.

Where did we get the idea that “standing for Christ” means perfectly following the rules and avoiding contact with sinners? Jesus never taught that, and in fact did quite the opposite.

Jesus knew these peoples sins and knew when they repented of them because He is GOD! I would never compare myself to Him when speaking of avoiding contact with sinners. Failure to admonish the sinner/condemn the sin if the subject comes up is sinful it itself - “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” If you don’t speak up for the teachings of the Church, you’re denying Christ.

 

[Island_Oak]

fix:

If it is public knowledge, then one should not attend. Even if there is an appearance of scandal, one should not attend. Let us not be intentionally ignorant or pretend we do not know that two people are living in sin if we have knowledge of it.

I just might be quirky this way, but I like saints who are not queasy about getting down and rolling around in the sludge of human misery and depravity–and STILL emerging clean as snow. Imagine the beautiful example we would be without had Mother Teresa disdained and isolated herself from the filthy, the diseased, the physically and morally destitute street people instead of devoting her life to their care.

 

[fix]

Island Oak:

I just might be quirky this way, but I like saints who are not queasy about getting down and rolling around in the sludge of human misery and depravity–and STILL emerging clean as snow. Imagine the beautiful example we would be without had Mother Teresa disdained and isolated herself from the filthy, the diseased, the physically and morally destitute street people instead of devoting her life to their care.

You are really joking, right? St. Theresa went among the poor to bring comfort and evangelize. Do you have proof she approved of going to a cocktail party hosted by known homosexuals? We are not speaking of the corporal works of mercy, but a social event. Hardly on par with each other.

BTW, Mother theresa is a good example for modern Catholics. She helped the poor and kept the moral law. She was assiduously obedient to all that the Church teaches and asked others to do the same. She never gave scandal.

 

[debbie_m]

Island Oak:

I just might be quirky this way, but I like saints who are not queasy about getting down and rolling around in the sludge of human misery and depravity–and STILL emerging clean as snow. Imagine the beautiful example we would be without had Mother Teresa disdained and isolated herself from the filthy, the diseased, the physically and morally destitute street people instead of devoting her life to their care.

Let’s get this right here, I don’t think anyone is saying, “stay away from those filthy sinners!” The point is this: ignoring sin, allowing sin, being silent about sin, supporting sin, etc., etc…is not loving, is not charitable and is a sin itself!

Also, let’s get out of “fantasy land” and come into the reality of what Our Lord, Jesus and St. Teresa of Calcutta (Mother Teresa) are like. Have you read the Bible where Jesus rebukes unrepentant sinners? Have you seen and heard St. Teresa of Calcutta’s rebuke of evil doers who continue in their ways? In comparison, people on this forum are “softies.” Did they associate with sinners and show them compassion and love? Yes. Did they speak and witness the Gospel loud and clear? Yes. Did they compromise the Gospel to “just get along?” No!

 

[Island_Oak]

Fix:

Has the possibility ever occurred to you that in His divine wisdom, when God created man with a free will, not only did He fully know men would not choose the straightest or most direct path to Him, but intended us humans to associate and interact with each other, even while steeped in our various states of sinfulness? And…that this design might allow men to gain insight into their own failings, learn how to overcome them–all the while developing compassion and restraint in criticizing others still struggling.

When invited to a casual social event, we ALWAYS have the option of declining for the most trivial OR substantive reasons. Clearly if you have a specific weakness, good judgment would lead you to avoid events that present you with temptation. However, merely attending an event, which does not have as its purpose the promotion of anything immoral, cannot reasonably or logically be construed to lend a stamp of approval to unrelated (sinful) acts of the hosts. The OP suggested neither that this party was a Roman toga party/orgy, nor an event that otherwise posed a challenge to the OP’s ability to avoid sin–but a holiday party hosted by a homosexual couple. I think THAT is the relevant distinction when deciding whether or not to attend a given function–not the “public” nature of hosts’ sin. The one thing we can safely assume about everyone…no matter how squeaky clean their lifestyle appears to the public…is that they are sinners. The “avoid 'em all” mentality can lead to a pretty sour and solitary existence.

 

[fix]

Island Oak:

Fix:

Has the possibility ever occurred to you that in His divine wisdom, when God created man with a free will, not only did He fully know men would not choose the straightest or most direct path to Him, but intended us humans to associate and interact with each other, even while steeped in our various states of sinfulness? And…that this design might allow men to gain insight into their own failings, learn how to overcome them–all the while developing compassion and restraint in criticizing others still struggling.

When invited to a casual social event, we ALWAYS have the option of declining for the most trivial OR substantive reasons. Clearly if you have a specific weakness, good judgment would lead you to avoid events that present you with temptation. However, merely attending an event, which does not have as its purpose the promotion of anything immoral, cannot reasonably or logically be construed to lend a stamp of approval to unrelated (sinful) acts of the hosts. The OP suggested neither that this party was a Roman toga party/orgy, nor an event that otherwise posed a challenge to the OP’s ability to avoid sin–but a holiday party hosted by a homosexual couple. I think THAT is the relevant distinction when deciding whether or not to attend a given function–not the “public” nature of hosts’ sin. The one thing we can safely assume about everyone…no matter how squeaky clean their lifestyle appears to the public…is that they are sinners. The “avoid 'em all” mentality can lead to a pretty sour and solitary existence.

A couple leading an illegitimate lifestyle has the freedom to throw a party. The question at hand is should a Catholic attend such an affair. My answer is no. I have given reasons in the other posts.

You fail to make the distinction between private sins and public scandal. No one has ever claimed some are without sin. The issues we are discussing are giving scandal and giving legitimacy to a perverted way of living. A publicly “gay” couple are not mere sinners who go to confession and make a firm purpose of ammendment not to sin again. They publicly deny the teachings of Christ and invite others to do so if they desire. The fact they are not advertizing their perversion in a newspaper does not mean they are not giving public scandal.

It is bad for the hosts, bad for the guests and bad for society. It pains me you can’t see the destruction and sin such purposeful choices do to the body of Christ.

 

[felra]

Island Oak:

Fix:

Has the possibility ever occurred to you that in His divine wisdom, when God created man with a free will, not only did He fully know men would not choose the straightest or most direct path to Him, but intended us humans to associate and interact with each other, even while steeped in our various states of sinfulness? And…that this design might allow men to gain insight into their own failings, learn how to overcome them–all the while developing compassion and restraint in criticizing others still struggling.

When invited to a casual social event, we ALWAYS have the option of declining for the most trivial OR substantive reasons. Clearly if you have a specific weakness, good judgment would lead you to avoid events that present you with temptation. However, merely attending an event, which does not have as its purpose the promotion of anything immoral, cannot reasonably or logically be construed to lend a stamp of approval to unrelated (sinful) acts of the hosts. The OP suggested neither that this party was a Roman toga party/orgy, nor an event that otherwise posed a challenge to the OP’s ability to avoid sin–but a holiday party hosted by a homosexual couple. I think THAT is the relevant distinction when deciding whether or not to attend a given function–not the “public” nature of hosts’ sin. The one thing we can safely assume about everyone…no matter how squeaky clean their lifestyle appears to the public…is that they are sinners. The “avoid 'em all” mentality can lead to a pretty sour and solitary existence.

A holiday party hosted by a homosexual, cohabitating couple is a public and active promotion of something gravely immoral. To attend can give a mixed message of condoning such a lifestyle choice. Take Jesus example of His invite and attendance to the party of the public sinners of His day–he went on to tell them the story of the prodigal son.

Let discernment and good judgement prevail in your decision to attend or not. But please don’t minimize the need that the world has for clear and convincing and compassionate witness to the Truth of the Gospel (however socially untidy this may be).

 

[felra]

debbie m.:

Let’s get this right here, I don’t think anyone is saying, “stay away from those filthy sinners!” The point is this: ignoring sin, allowing sin, being silent about sin, supporting sin, etc., etc…is not loving, is not charitable and is a sin itself!

Also, let’s get out of “fantasy land” and come into the reality of what Our Lord, Jesus and St. Teresa of Calcutta (Mother Teresa) are like. Have you read the Bible where Jesus rebukes unrepentant sinners? Have you seen and heard St. Teresa of Calcutta’s rebuke of evil doers who continue in their ways? In comparison, people on this forum are “softies.” Did they associate with sinners and show them compassion and love? Yes. Did they speak and witness the Gospel loud and clear? Yes. Did they compromise the Gospel to “just get along?” No!

You go! girl! go!

 

[ThyKingdomCome]

The reason why a party at the home of a homosexual couple is not comparable to a party at the home of your average contracepting couple is that for the homosexual couple, the home itself is a public statement of their sin. Their throwing the party together, as a couple, is also such a public statement. The fact that they live there as a couple is the problem. So to be a part of the “public statement” is like condoning it. For a contracepting couple, the home itself, or the fact that they are throwing a party in their home makes no public statement about their sin of contraception.

And as for Jesus associating with sinners, I wouldn’t be surprised if he would go to that Christmas Party. But while he was there, he’d be preaching to them about turning toward God and away from sin, maybe even “turning over the tables.” I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t sit there, sip coctails, and agree with the couple’s friends from work about how lovely their home is decorated.

God Bless,
TKC

 

[jzepi]

Island Oak:

Interesting insight, fix. Perhaps relevant to the comment from our highly-judgmental new (4 posts) friend from NJ (single, 41 year old man with so many good friends rescued from “the life”) that the topic of this thread touched a nerve.

Island, re-read your first post in this thread where you offer your opinion indirectly – by dissecting and ridiculing somebody else’s.

Would that, in your view of reality, qualify as judgmental ?
How about self-righteous ? Arrogant ? Contemptuous ?

I do not believe you are the one to “judge” me as judgmental, no matter how many misinformed posts you have churned out.

 

[StubbleSpark]

I think one of the important distinctions we should make is that Jesus did not “party” with prostitutes and other sinners. He witnessed to them by demonstrating their intrinsic value as human beings.

Naturally, he enjoyed his time with them while witnessing God’s universal love, but the main idea of getting together was definitely not self-gratification nor was it a desire to gratify his hosts’ non-spiritual needs.

Everything Jesus said and did, was to save (and he enjoyed his work). For those who want to distinguish between going just for fun and going to witness, I would like to ask the question: When are you NOT witnessing?

Or as GK Chesterton said: “There is only one topic,”

Go to witness or don’t go at all.

Personally, I do not have an “off” button when it comes to Christ!

 

[StubbleSpark]

Island Oak:

Fix:

Has the possibility ever occurred to you that in His divine wisdom, when God created man with a free will, not only did He fully know men would not choose the straightest or most direct path to Him, but intended us humans to associate and interact with each other, even while steeped in our various states of sinfulness? And…that this design might allow men to gain insight into their own failings, learn how to overcome them–all the while developing compassion and restraint in criticizing others still struggling.

When invited to a casual social event, we ALWAYS have the option of declining for the most trivial OR substantive reasons. Clearly if you have a specific weakness, good judgment would lead you to avoid events that present you with temptation. However, merely attending an event, which does not have as its purpose the promotion of anything immoral, cannot reasonably or logically be construed to lend a stamp of approval to unrelated (sinful) acts of the hosts. The OP suggested neither that this party was a Roman toga party/orgy, nor an event that otherwise posed a challenge to the OP’s ability to avoid sin–but a holiday party hosted by a homosexual couple. I think THAT is the relevant distinction when deciding whether or not to attend a given function–not the “public” nature of hosts’ sin. The one thing we can safely assume about everyone…no matter how squeaky clean their lifestyle appears to the public…is that they are sinners. The “avoid 'em all” mentality can lead to a pretty sour and solitary existence.

You draw the line at orgies. That is a sign that you also have limits to which your own logic will not take you. This means your reasoning is flawed because it conflicts with your conscience.

While the “avoid them all” attitude can lead to a solitary existence, I have seen much bitter loneliness in a crowded room of revelers but none in the desert hermitage. More often than not, people who let themselves be swept away by the fear that their beliefs will leave them isolated end up abandoned and desperate – spent rags of the a materialistic world.

“Loneliness” is not a word in the Christian vocabulary. Do not be swayed by juvenile peer pressure.

 

[jzepi]

Island Oak:

…all the while developing compassion and restraint in criticizing others still struggling.

If somebody is struggling to do God’s will and failing, that is one thing. Correction (not criticism) would be pointless in this case, since the person is already trying to do the right thing, and that is the point of correction: to let people know they are on the wrong track.

The key point is: The homosexual hosts of the party AREN’T STRUGGLING to do God’s will. Unless they are living chaste lives, they are openly saying “we’re going ahead with this gravely immoral action” – homosexual sex, with the probability of contributing to others following suit by virtue of the fact that they are public (“out”) about it.

Perhaps you think that this is the best they can do, and we have to just let them live as they wish until they “figure it out”. I agree that at times that is all that we can do. But knowledge of certain moral truths is helpful here: God never wills moral evil. That is why, during the process of waiting for them to turn toward God in repentance, we must never praise or give approval to this gravely immoral action they are doing. (Catechism #1868 and surrounding section) Charity under these conditions can amount to “tough love”. This is why several people have said that if you go to the party you need to make clear your disapproval, whether it seems socially appropriate or not. If you can’t stand the inappropriateness of it, you should not attend. It’s a matter of priorities.

If you knew the host of a party was not paying their child support, could you really in good conscience go and enjoy yourself ? Would you attend a party given by Mary Kay Laterneau ?

Do you believe that homosexual sex is bad for these men? Many people who have not given it much thought or seen it much think – eh, who cares? But they are wrong – it is very damaging, morally, spiritually, and even physically. Mostly to them themselves, but there is a spillover to those around them and society as well.

 

[fix]

ThyKingdomCome:

And as for Jesus associating with sinners, I wouldn’t be surprised if he would go to that Christmas Party. But while he was there, he’d be preaching to them about turning toward God and away from sin, maybe even “turning over the tables.” I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t sit there, sip coctails, and agree with the couple’s friends from work about how lovely their home is decorated.

You hit the nail on the head. This idea that because Christ ate with sinners we get a free pass to associate with public sinners for social reasons or to have a party is really outrageous. Perhaps we should attend a crack party, or a wife swapping party? Apparently we have lost the power to discern and justly discriminate.