Opinions needed

[fix]

4 marks:

He also stood firmly against discrimination and condemns those who discriminate against others because of who they are. When one refuses to attend a party thrown by a homosexual man because he is a homosexual man, one is discriminating and is practicing bigotry…pure and simple.

Rubbish! Discrimination is not always bad. It is very needed in many ways. The case here is not about discrimination based on an immoral agenda by those not going to a party, it is about discrimination based on giving scandal and posssibly leading others astray.

Your reasoning is purely based on pop culture values and not Christain principles.

This case is about public sin and scandal, not about “discriminating” against a man or men struggling with SSAD and living a life acording to the teachings of the Church.

 

[4_marks]

fix:

Rubbish! Discrimination is not always bad. It is very needed in many ways. The case here is not about discrimination based on an immoral agenda by those not going to a party, it is about discrimination based on giving scandal and posssibly leading others astray.

Your reasoning is purely based on pop culture values and not Christain principles.

This case is about public sin and scandal, not about “discriminating” against a man or men struggling with SSAD and living a life acording to the teachings of the Church.

Discrimination against other human beings for reasons of race, creed, color, gender, religious or political persuasion, intellect, economic level, and/or sexual orientation is ALWAYS wrong! As for public scandal, it is more scandalous to discriminate against others by refusing to attend because the man throwing the party happens to be gay and is living the gay lifestyle.

My wife and I attended my brother’s wedding to his partner. We consider his partner our brother-in-law and a member of our family. He was deeply hurt when one of my brother’s, a Jehovah’s Witness Elder and his family, refused to attend. As a result, their relationship as siblings will never be the same. For what? To prove a point that one is dedicated above all things to keeping what one believes are God’s laws and decrees? That’s exactly what the Pharisees were about. Jesus called them
“whitewashed tombs filled with the bones of the dead.” He also called them hypocrites.

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Unfortunately strict and pious adherence to the teachings and decrees and regulations of the Catholic Church (or any other church ororganization) can become an obstacle to loving another person UNCONDITIONALLY.

 

[Island_Oak]

fix:

Christ ate with sinners and called them to conversion. He did not eat with them to sip cocktails and engage to polite chatter.

But do you suppose the process of sharing a glass of wine, breaking bread and sharing conversation lent itself to subtly introducing the sinners to Jesus’ heart and his message? Do you further suppose that our ability to influence those around us is much easier if first we meet in friendship and in an unthreatning environment? Think of your own life. Do you welcome the advice, much less criticism or preaching of those you don’t even know and who don’t know you?

 

[space_ghost]

WWJD… I bet Jesus would have attended… he even visited the houses of tax collectors…

follow your heart…

Merry Christmas!

 

[felra]

4 marks:

He also stood firmly against discrimination and condemns those who discriminate against others because of who they are. When one refuses to attend a party thrown by a homosexual man because he is a homosexual man, one is discriminating and is practicing bigotry…pure and simple.

Against discrimination, tolerance, …these are good and fine humanistic values. The confusion and blurring of a hierachy of values is when human values superseed God’s law’s and decrees.

 

[4_marks]

felra:

Against discrimination, tolerance, …these are good and fine humanistic values. The confusion and blurring of a hierachy of values is when human values superseed God’s law’s and decrees.

God creates a person

God creates person with the need for physical intimacy with others

Person is aware that they are homosexual

Person knows that they didn’t choose to be homosexual

God ordains laws forbidding person from engaging in physical intimacy outside of marriage

Person is frustrated and tormented. How could God be so sadistic?

Person rejects God and spends eternity separated from Him (in hell)

Whaddya know, Calvin must have been right?

The end.

 

[fix]

4 marks:

Discrimination against other human beings for reasons of race, creed, color, gender, religious or political persuasion, intellect, economic level, and/or sexual orientation is ALWAYS wrong!

It depends on how one defines discrimination. It is not always wrong. We need to discriminate based on one’s actions and one’s words. Do you intentionally associate with neo nazis? What about those who endorse homosexual acts as normal?

As for public scandal, it is more scandalous to discriminate against others by refusing to attend because the man throwing the party happens to be gay and is living the gay lifestyle.

More nonsense. It is a scandal to embrace error as virtue and lead others into error.

My wife and I attended my brother’s wedding to his partner.

That was your mistake, why lead others to the same error?

We consider his partner our brother-in-law and a member of our family. He was deeply hurt when one of my brother’s, a Jehovah’s Witness Elder and his family, refused to attend.

Deeply hurt? Are you more concerned with offending Christ or offending a sinner who can’t see the truth?

As a result, their relationship as siblings will never be the same. For what? To prove a point that one is dedicated above all things to keeping what one believes are God’s laws and decrees? That’s exactly what the Pharisees were about. Jesus called them
“whitewashed tombs filled with the bones of the dead.” He also called them hypocrites.

You are way off base. The truth can be known by all men. Keeping the moral law is a virtue. Christ preached against hypocrisy. The Pharisees were hypocrites. They claimed to be holy, but were not. This is like those homosexualists who claim to be in union with Christ, yet lead lives of perversion and publicly invite others to sin as well.

Christ of the Pahrisees to do EXACTLY as they tell you to do, but do not act as they do.

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Unfortunately strict and pious adherence to the teachings and decrees and regulations of the Catholic Church (or any other church ororganization) can become an obstacle to loving another person UNCONDITIONALLY.

Garbage. You sound like an anti Catholic. Following the teachings of the Church will lead to holiness. Accepting error as truth can lead to perdition.

 

[debbie_m]

felra:

Against discrimination, tolerance, …these are good and fine humanistic values. The confusion and blurring of a hierachy of values is when human values superseed God’s law’s and decrees.

I agree with you! We are definitely dealing with humanistic values here. Here is the definition of humanism: “an outlook or system of thought concerned with human rather than divine or supernatural matters.”

Have you ever heard of people “unconditionally loving” others right into Hell?

 

[fix]

space ghost:

WWJD… I bet Jesus would have attended… he even visited the houses of tax collectors…

follow your heart…

Merry Christmas!

Incorrect. WWJD is a new agey false way to follow a poorly formed conscience.

 

[felra]

4 marks:

Discrimination against other human beings for reasons of race, creed, color, gender, religious or political persuasion, intellect, economic level, and/or sexual orientation is ALWAYS wrong! As for public scandal, it is more scandalous to discriminate against others by refusing to attend because the man throwing the party happens to be gay and is living the gay lifestyle.

My wife and I attended my brother’s wedding to his partner. We consider his partner our brother-in-law and a member of our family. He was deeply hurt when one of my brother’s, a Jehovah’s Witness Elder and his family, refused to attend. As a result, their relationship as siblings will never be the same. For what? To prove a point that one is dedicated above all things to keeping what one believes are God’s laws and decrees? That’s exactly what the Pharisees were about. Jesus called them
“whitewashed tombs filled with the bones of the dead.” He also called them hypocrites.

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Unfortunately strict and pious adherence to the teachings and decrees and regulations of the Catholic Church (or any other church ororganization) can become an obstacle to loving another person UNCONDITIONALLY.

The ultimate goal is not to love others UNCONDITIONALLY; but to unconditionally love the sinner so as to lead them to the Truth that is Jesus Christ, the Truth of the Gospel, into a saving relationship with the Savior. The law was made for man, and man was made for God through Jesus Christ. Don’t stop short of spreading the fullness of the Gospel through your deeds and words.

 

[fix]

Island Oak:

But do you suppose the process of sharing a glass of wine, breaking bread and sharing conversation lent itself to subtly introducing the sinners to Jesus’ heart and his message? Do you further suppose that our ability to influence those around us is much easier if first we meet in friendship and in an unthreatning environment? Think of your own life. Do you welcome the advice, much less criticism or preaching of those you don’t even know and who don’t know you?

If one is going with the intention of charitably speaking the truth, then by all means go. If one is going to be little more than a silent endorser of one more deviant thing in our culture, the stay home a pray the rosary.

 

[jzepi]

Island Oak:

But do you suppose the process of sharing a glass of wine, breaking bread and sharing conversation lent itself to subtly introducing the sinners to Jesus’ heart and his message? Do you further suppose that our ability to influence those around us is much easier if first we meet in friendship and in an unthreatning environment? Think of your own life. Do you welcome the advice, much less criticism or preaching of those you don’t even know and who don’t know you?

I think you are assuming here that we would go to the party with our moral theology guns blazing, preaching and hollering about spiritual consequences. I would never do that and I think very few people would be that simple-minded, especially nowadays. Maybe 20 or 30 years ago the devout Christians were the black-and-white thinking folks. Nowadays it is the gay rights activists.

If I had a strong friendship with the homosexual couple and my opposition to their life choice was well-known by them, I might well go to the party (if I was still welcome!) to share about following Jesus Christ if I thought they were even open to it.

You are right in that poorly thought out preaching at people is ineffective. But we are here, in Catholic Answers Forums, Moral Theology section, discussing the merits of attending a party and sending a non-verbal message by our presence and “party demeanor” that this life choice is no big deal.

I want to make something else clear that several people seem not to “get”: Nothing said or advocated here has been disrespectful of homosexual people. Passing up a party is not bigotry - please! - we must maintain some precision of ideas to have a meaningful conversation!

And if we cannot say an action is gravely immoral and displeasing to God in a Moral Theology Forum without ourselves being reviled by fellow Christians, then what has the world come to? Has P.C.-talk really taken over the world here as well?

And anyway, we are only saying what the Church undeniably teaches: in a nutshell, that charity sometimes involves pointing out mortal sin, because it can prevent people from being saved. We may do that by our presence or our absence, we must do it as tactfully as we are able, but we ARE obliged to do it! If we have a clear understanding of charity - real love - we will come to understand this.

 

[Island_Oak]

jzepi:

Let’s pretend I am invited to a Christmas party by a doctor in my neighborhood who is “out and proud” about performing abortions in a clinic in my town. You find out that I have gone to his party and laughed merrily all night with him and his friends. I never said a word about anything we might disagree upon, since the purpose of the party had nothing to do with abortion.

Wouldn’t you allow that this could reasonably and logically be construed as me lending a stamp of approval to unrelated (sinful) acts of the host ?

I would submit that this is a qualitativley different scenario. The original post inquired about attending a social event hosted by someone engaged in a personal lifestyle that runs counter to church doctrine AND whether by such attendance it could be inferred that the attendee condoned the lifestyle. You have proposed a scenario in which the conduct at issue is not just a matter of personal conduct. A physician who openly and publicly performs abortions on other individuals, makes his living thereby and presumably uses the proceeds to purchase the champagne the guests are sipping is a far leap from the original issue and I see no comparison. In such a case I think few would object if an invitee chose to decline on these grounds.

Failing that, would you at the very least allow that this could reasonably be perceived as me making it known, in my neighborhood, that, while I may well think abortion is less than ideal, I don’t think abortion is anything to get upset about, since it would be reasonable to conclude that I have put my enjoyment of the party as a higher priority ?

To continue the illustration, let’s say that around this same Christmas season, my neighbor, a teenage girl who is pregnant with her boyfriend’s baby, knows that I am a Catholic and respects me. She is struggling with the decision to abort her child, and her boyfriend, a very attractive and persuasive but morally unschooled man, points out that I, a Catholic who she knows and respects, have attended this party with the abortion doctor. He points this out to her as evidence that it will be ok, and to cajole her into agreeing with his wishes and going through with the abortion. Ultimately, she does go through with the abortion. And part of her rationalization was that I, a knowledgeable Catholic that she respects, gave her the impression I thought it was ok.

This is reasonable and logical, is it not ? It is not out of the realm of possibility I don’t think.

Just at least give it some thought.

Possible? If you subscribe to the “anything’s possible” school of thought. Just like it’s “possible” that OJ was innocent. Reasonable and logical? Hardly. There are clearly so many influences working on the decision making of this girl that the direct, logical link you try to establish is simply not demonstrated or supportable as causative. As noted above, attending or declining an invitation to a party hosted under the circumstances you describe is fundamentally, morally distinguishable from the question posed in the original post.

 

[felra]

space ghost:

WWJD… I bet Jesus would have attended… he even visited the houses of tax collectors…

follow your heart…

Merry Christmas!

…and he preached the Gospel to those public sinners (tax collectors) of his days, told them the story of the prodigal son, speaking the Truth in love.

 

[fix]

These posts really show the divide in the culture and the Church. Some want to lessen the seriousness of grave sin. They want to minimize the nature of scandal and appeal to the false doctrines of popular culture instead of the sound teachings of the Church. One can argue going to such a party may be licit under certain conditions, but I see no way to argue it is illicit not to attend the party when one has a properly formed conscience.

 

[debbie_m]

Here’s what I would do if after prayer and discernment I felt God was calling me to go to the party of a homosexual couple for the main purpose of evangelizing, planting seeds and saving souls. I would be sure to wear my crucifix visibly, as I always do, and strategically set a goal of how many times I will mention Jesus’ name or something about my Catholic faith at the party. (These are just ideas off the top of my head.)

God bless,
Debbie

 

[jzepi]

BLB_Oregon:

Did Peter fail to point out someone’s sins three times before the cock crowed? No. He literally denied that he knew who Jesus was. There is a third way between accepting sin and refusing contact with someone you judge to be a worse sinner than yourself. Here is another saying of Jesus:

“Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven… Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me remove that splinter in your eye,” when you do not even notice the wooden beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! Remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother’s eye." Luke 6:36-37, 41-42

Those who have had a wooden beam removed from their own eye speak as if they know it. They act as if they know it, for they are grateful for the great gift of sight, knowing still that they see imperfectly, and greatly compassionate to anyone who suffers from the loss they themselves have suffered. They would never think it okay to just leave the wood in there.

I agree we must be merciful. I think we disagree on how to be merciful. I think you might be falling into the mistake of assuming that if I point out somebody else’s grave sin, that I think I am superior to that person. The truth is, I would (and often have) refrained from pointing out such sin to homosexuals who I do not think would receive it or understand what I meant. In such cases I am very strict with myself that I must pray for them with a heart filled with charity and not self-righteousness. This is not because I am so smart and I am so holy, but because I have been TAUGHT to do this and I have received the GRACE to actually do it. Everybody can do it. But nobody will do it if they do not want to do it, and nobody will want to do it if they do not think it is the right thing to do.

It is very difficult and tragic when I meet Catholics who are homosexually active (yes I do actually know some well) yet refuse to believe there is any contradiction with their Faith. Only God knows what their true fate will be. But I think anybody who has knowledge of and faith in the Catholic Church has got to admit that some people are on very very thin ice. That is not a value judgement about them as people. It is a tragedy of the choices they have made, and most often that is a consequence of the things they have been taught – whether by pop culture or by a well-meaning but dreadfully misinformed Catholic religion teacher.

 

[Island_Oak]

fix:

These posts really show the divide in the culture and the Church. Some want to lessen the seriousness of grave sin. They want to minimize the nature of scandal and appeal to the false doctrines of popular culture instead of the sound teachings of the Church. One can argue going to such a party may be licit under certain conditions, but I see no way to argue it is illicit not to attend the party when one has a properly formed conscience.

Perhaps that’s where we agree to end. I don’t think anyone who’s posted would say you must attend or condemn you for not attending on the basis of a sincere belief that church teaching on the lifestyle at issue compels you to stay home. On the other hand I think it is possible to attend such an event without breaching moral beliefs or being accused of buying into or endorsing the lifestyle of the hosts.

 

[felra]

4 marks:

God creates a person

God creates person with the need for physical intimacy with others

Person is aware that they are homosexual

Person knows that they didn’t choose to be homosexual

God ordains laws forbidding person from engaging in physical intimacy outside of marriage

Person is frustrated and tormented. How could God be so sadistic?

Person rejects God and spends eternity separated from Him (in hell)

Whaddya know, Calvin must have been right?

The end.

You had it correct until you got upto the bold highlighted in your sequence. You forgot to plug Satan into the equation/sequence. Satan is the one who stirs up human frustration and torments our passions and desires contrary to God’s design. God gave us His Son, as the means to our salvation. Satan is the sadistic one, the father of lies, the accuser, the one who shouts at us our condemnation.

 

[jzepi]

Island Oak, you got off track. Yes, my abortion doctor scenario was indeed a qualitatively different scenario. I did that to prove my point: Because statements can be made non-verbally by our presence and demeanor, your statement:
Island Oak:

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.

is false.