Say again?

[OldYoungGuy]

This should probably be in the moral theology section, but I wanted to get a take from more traditional leaning Catholics. I was listening to the Catholic Business Hour on EWTN Radio. (not completely sure about that title). I’m not sure who the host was, but he brought up a question from a candle maker. The question went as follows:

“I am a candle maker and make custom candles for certain events. Recently a same-sex couple asked me to make candles for their wedding, is this allowed?”

The host in answering the question said that anti-discrimination laws prevent us from discriminating against said couples and stated that he asked two clergymen about this and was given the answer that it is not our place to discriminate against these people, but to love them.

My head about went through the top of my car. No mention was made of these laws being unjust laws that require compliance of Catholics in matters that we morally object to and that a Catholic is not bound to follow an unjust law, but than to go on and say we are not to discriminate. Every Catholic is bound to discriminate between good and evil, and that does not mean we are damning the individuals. In Christian charity we are bound to show our disapproval of immoral practices out of love for the individuals soul for the greater glory of God.

To me it seemed that the easy road was taken, telling the candle maker to just do business with the mentioned couple, and while it may be morally acceptable out of a fear of lawsuit, it certainly is not the Catholic ideal.

I would hate to stand before a panel of martyrs and be asked why I compromised The Faith and have to answer, “to avoid a lawsuit.”

 

[ConstantineTG]

I do agree about the loving them part. But if he did not make candles for them for religious reasons, how does that win them over to Catholicism? Is making candles for them an endorsement of gay marriage?

 

[OldYoungGuy]

My take was that the candles were for the marriage ceremony. A ceremony which would be an insult to God.

If you were to sell a loaf of bread to said couple, I see nothing wrong, for there is nothing evil about the act of eating.

When you are selling something you know is going to be used for something immoral I believe you participate by consent or even participation.

 

[OldYoungGuy]

But if he did not make candles for them for religious reasons, how does that win them over to Catholicism?

By showing disapproval of immoral behavior, the Catholic always hopes for the conversion of the sinner. However if he affirms them in their sin, how does that bring them any closer to the Catholic Church?

 

[smiddle]

I would hate to stand before a panel of martyrs and be asked why I compromised The Faith and have to answer, “to avoid a lawsuit.”

I do not think that refusing to make candles for a same-sex couple would constitute martyrdom.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

If you were to sell a loaf of bread to said couple, I see nothing wrong, for there is nothing evil about the act of eating.

There’s nothing evil about the act of eating… there is something evil about poisoning one’s food.

What? You think assassins who go for that style bake their own murder weapons?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I do not think that refusing to make candles for a same-sex couple would constitute martyrdom.

Christ wouldn’t have told his disciples to pack a couple of swords if He intended them to kill themselves so recklessly.

From that scene in the Bible, it’s easy to discern that it’s not always wrong to consider the smart thing over the ‘religious’ thing.

 

[Darran]

From that scene in the Bible, it’s easy to discern that it’s not always wrong to consider the smart thing over the ‘religious’ thing.

Not sure I get where you’re going with that.

I agree with you 100% OldYoungGuy, the host gave terrible advice.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Not sure I get where you’re going with that.

I agree with you 100% OldYoungGuy, the host gave terrible advice.

The OP was talking about martyrdom to justify opposition against compliance. If Jesus was so hell-bent on martyrs, He wouldn’t have sent His disciples with instructions to carry things that would help them fend for themselves.

 

[loko]

Personally, I think that the host should have discussed these laws further.

The U.S. is now seeing a law passed that forces Catholic institutions to provide healthcare that provides contraceptives that abort babies.

Are Catholics going to be as dismissive or are they going to fight for Christ. We have yet to see the outcome.

Just because something is legal doesn’t make it morally or theologically right.

Having said that I don’t think you should refuse to sell/make the candles for the gay couple. Even if that law did not exist, we must abide by the laws of the land and this is example is different. It would not be venial or a mortal sin to make/sell them candles. You are not participating in or condoning their lifestyle by doing so.

 

[GEddie]

Originally Posted by OldYoungGuy
I would hate to stand before a panel of martyrs and be asked why I compromised The Faith and have to answer, “to avoid a lawsuit.”

I don’t think he said that it did.

But I just saw the film “For Greater Glory” which pertains to the Cristero years in MX, in which scores of people were martyred, often particularly hideously.

How would it be, facing those who gave up their very being because they would not compromise what they believed; to admit that one knuckled under when no danger existed to avoid being sued?

ICXC NIKA

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

How would it be, facing those who gave up their very being because they would not compromise what they believed; to admit that one knuckled under when no danger existed to avoid being sued?

I think the lack of danger itself and the drama of a lawsuit should be something of a point here. I don’t think comparing the ‘trial’ of ‘standing up’ in this case would be a fair comparison either.

I mean look at this way.

Those people gave their lives for their religious belief.

Had this candle-maker refused, he would have just given himself a nightmare of bad press and the crippling financial losses of a lawsuit. It’s neither good but at the same, it’s not glorious either.

 

[smiddle]

I don’t think he said that it did.

But I just saw the film “For Greater Glory” which pertains to the Cristero years in MX, in which scores of people were martyred, often particularly hideously.

How would it be, facing those who gave up their very being because they would not compromise what they believed; to admit that one knuckled under when no danger existed to avoid being sued?

ICXC NIKA

The two situations are completely different, to compare them makes no sense. It is a candle. Candles do not condone or show support for a lifestyle. Homosexual or not, people are still people. They should be treated with the respect that they deserve. It is not our job to discriminate against them in any way. In the eyes of the Church, the wedding is invalid, so to provide them with candles should not matter because the ceremony has no meaning. Unless the couple was requesting that he make candles bedazzled with the words “I support gay marriage” and display them in his store, he has no right or reason to refuse them business.

Besides, it’s a recession, are candle makers really in that high of a demand that they are in the position to refuse someone business and face the repercussions of a lawsuit?

 

[Darran]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/554/facepalm.jpg

Basically all that should be said for some of the replies in this thread.

It’s exactly the same in principle to the woman last year who denied a cake to a same sex couple. And she is entirely justified for doing so. It doesn’t matter what you’re selling, you’re obliged by honesty not to sell something when you know it will be used immorally.

Who would sell a knife to a man with a bloodstained shirt? Then again, that’s a hyperbole, which obviously some of you don’t understand.

 

[OldYoungGuy]

Who would sell a knife to a man with a bloodstained shirt? Then again, that’s a hyperbole, which obviously some of you don’t understand.

Or would you sell forceps to a doctor you knew was performing abortions?

 

[OldYoungGuy]

The OP was talking about martyrdom to justify opposition against compliance. If Jesus was so hell-bent on martyrs, He wouldn’t have sent His disciples with instructions to carry things that would help them fend for themselves.

So are you stating that the martyrs of the church died in vain? Or that anything less than martyrdom is pointless?

 

[ProVobis]

This should probably be in the moral theology section, but I wanted to get a take from more traditional leaning Catholics. I was listening to the Catholic Business Hour on EWTN Radio. (not completely sure about that title). I’m not sure who the host was, but he brought up a question from a candle maker. The question went as follows:

“I am a candle maker and make custom candles for certain events. Recently a same-sex couple asked me to make candles for their wedding, is this allowed?”

IMO, it was wrong for them to involve you in the controversy. If it were I who was employing a candle-maker, I’d just give him the specs. He doesn’t really need to know it’s for a same-sex event, does he? If I work for a paper company, do I really need to know that perhaps this very ream paper of paper I’m processing might be sold to Planned Parenthood or for some other evil work one day, for example? Point is there will always be some connection between your well-intended activities and evil. So what’s the solution? Leave the planet?

 

[smiddle]

Or would you sell forceps to a doctor you knew was performing abortions?

Well, yes, you would. Forceps are still used by some when there are complications during birth. Medicine is science, if you don’t know it, don’t try and argue it.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Who would sell a knife to a man with a bloodstained shirt? Then again, that’s a hyperbole, which obviously some of you don’t understand.

A weak hyperbole at that. (Here’s a hint: Butchers have bloodstained shirts. Gonna turn PETA just to prove your point?)

Or would you sell forceps to a doctor you knew was performing abortions?

Right. You’d know that because you were, what? Capable of mind-reading?

So are you stating that the martyrs of the church died in vain? Or that anything less than martyrdom is pointless?

I’m saying there’s a fine difference between martyrdom and tomfoolery. If anything, you’re encouraging people to be like the hypocrites who bemoan their sacrifices openly.

 

[mattkubes]

If you want a traditional Catholic perspective on this issue, you would do well to post it somewhere other than CAF.

Still, it has been an interesting exercise in mental gymnastics.