Should I attend my son's wedding?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shouva
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So - instead - publicly validating the living situation is a better choice? Not only from the perspective of helping the son to make the right decisions, but from the perspective of a Catholic attending a ceremony she does not agree with and will result in a situation that is morally unacceptable - it sends the message to others of her support and acceptance.

Remember - this is what the OP states:

They have been living a “manage a trois” for 3 years. I do not doubt that the “sharing” will continue after the civil ceremony.

This is what I have to go on. Given this, I could never recommend that the mother validate this situation.

~Liza
 
I have been struggling trying to know how to love. Do we love the sinner more than hating the sin, or vice versa? I don’t think that hating the sin means to stay away from opportunities to love. We know Christ ate with sinners. On the otherhand, where does OUR humility come in? Would it be as the litany of humility states: from the desire of being loved, honored, approved, from the fear of being despised, of being ridiculed, etc. If this is the case, I still do not know if this humility in the case of your son’s wedding refers to you NOT attending. Can’t it also refer to you TO ATTEND? In all honesty, it doesn’t take them to make it work, it takes God to make it work. Maybe you should tell both your son AND her beforehand, how you disagree with their lifestyle and how they aren’t putting God first in their lives. Then tell them you are going to attend the Wedding because you LOVE THEM BOTH, which you do (you just hate the sin). Then do what has to be done in order for God to make it work. Say an extra rosary. Look at how all the rosary prayers Father Cropi’s mother said for him while he was living a sinful life worked. And, have a Mass said for them during their first year of marriage, and then on their wedding anniversary. God will make it work even if they or even if you do not attend. Always remember, A Mass and a prayer (especially if that prayer is the rosary) is ALWAYS greater than a wing and a prayer!
 
Remember - this is what the OP states:

They have been living a “manage a trois” for 3 years. I do not doubt that the “sharing” will continue after the civil ceremony.

This is what I have to go on. Given this, I could never recommend that the mother validate this situation.

~Liza
Exactly. The OP has given us all the information we, as the participates of this thread, need. She is fully aware of the relationship, and she has informed us that this relationship involves three people in a sexual relationship.

Polyamory, as it is referred to by people in these relationships, usually involves the “primary couple” (in this case the son and soon to be DIL) and others within the relationship. These relationships usually operate with one couple getting, or being, married. They see no problem with one set being married and the others within the relationship not. More often than not, it is to receive benefits (as I have seen from friends of mine being in such relationships).

Polyamorous relationships can involve more than one “primary couple” and the others involved in the relationship. The most I have experiences is 4 couples in one household with several “single” persons involved as well. And before you ask, yes, children were being raised in this environment.

**It is morally reprehensible, and as Catholics, we cannot attend, and therefore condone, the “joinings”/“marriages” of such relationships.
**
 
I don’t agree that attending is validating it. It is being there for your child through thick and thin. That’s different from validating it. Again may I remind you that the OP has not clarified what was meant by her wording. It may be that they live in a 3bed flat in 3 separate beds, not necesarily 3 in one bed! Most likely, it is somewhere in-between. What is this idea that the public are interested in the mother’s opinion anyway- surely that is between mother and son? The son is going to get married whether the mother is there or not. The mother being there isn’t making it any more or less valid :rolleyes: . Helping the son make the right decision sound ideal but what you fail to recognise is that the son is an adult and has the free will to do as he pleases. Thankfully Our Father didn’t just leave us to it when we didn’t do things has way. Instead, He rebuked us with His Word. He gently guided us through the hard times and He stayed with us, even when we strayed, waiting for us to realise Him and come back.😉
So - instead - publicly validating the living situation is a better choice? Not only from the perspective of helping the son to make the right decisions, but from the perspective of a Catholic attending a ceremony she does not agree with and will result in a situation that is morally unacceptable - it sends the message to others of her support and acceptance.

Remember - this is what the OP states:

They have been living a “manage a trois” for 3 years. I do not doubt that the “sharing” will continue after the civil ceremony.
This is what I have to go on. Given this, I could never recommend that the mother validate this situation.

~Liza
 
The OP made the situation clear when she said “menage a trois”, which means three people in a sexual situation.
Being there for your child also includes saying “no” sometimes and setting boundaries.
 
Again may I remind you that the OP has not clarified what was meant by her wording. It may be that they live in a 3bed flat in 3 separate beds, not necesarily 3 in one bed!
What needs to be clarified? This is directly from the OP:
“His relationship with his best friend (attended the same Catholic schools) and his fiance is totally morally reprehensible. They have been living a “manage a trois” for 3 years. I do not doubt that the “sharing” will continue after the civil ceremony.”
She has told us outright that this is a three-way sexual relationship!
What is this idea that the public are interested in the mother’s opinion anyway- surely that is between mother and son?
She asked for help and our opinion. We are giving it.
Instead, He rebuked us with His Word. He gently guided us through the hard times and He stayed with us, even when we strayed, waiting for us to realise Him and come back.😉
And she should avoid this “marriage” because of what Jesus taught. She is staying with him, it is he would must decide to maintain a relationship with his mother. She must make her beliefs known, and then he must make the decision.
 
The child is no longer a child - he is an adult!
The OP made the situation clear when she said “menage a trois”, which means three people in a sexual situation.
Being there for your child also includes saying “no” sometimes and setting boundaries.
 
The child is no longer a child - he is an adult!
Even as an adult, we are still our parent’s children, and they still need to tell us no.
I darn well hope that, even as a mother and wife, if my parents see me doing something destructive to myself, my husband, my child, or my relationship with God, that they have the strength to tell me NO (yet again 😊 )
 
I don’t agree that attending is validating it. It is being there for your child through thick and thin. That’s different from validating it. Again may I remind you that the OP has not clarified what was meant by her wording. It may be that they live in a 3bed flat in 3 separate beds, not necesarily 3 in one bed! Most likely, it is somewhere in-between…
Please see this thread from last year where Shouva asked about this kind of relationship specifically.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=114003&highlight=shouva
 
I don’t speak french and this is not a french forum.That aside, how can the mother know that that is true?
I still think you need to remember it is an adult that is in question here as opposed to a child. The teaching shlould already have been done.
What needs to be clarified? This is directly from the OP:
“His relationship with his best friend (attended the same Catholic schools) and his fiance is totally morally reprehensible. They have been living a “manage a trois” for 3 years. I do not doubt that the “sharing” will continue after the civil ceremony.”
She has told us outright that this is a three-way sexual relationship!

.
 
I don’t speak french and this is not a french forum.That aside, how can the mother know that that is true?
I still think you need to remember it is an adult that is in question here as opposed to a child. The teaching shlould already have been done.
manage a trois= sexual relationship involving 3 people

From another thread by the OP:
“My son is living in what they call a “poly-amaphorous” relationship. He and his best friend (both products of Catholic schools) share the same female “mate” and have so for over two years now.”
 
Shouva,

I feel so sorry for you - what a situation in which to find yourself!

If it was an actual, though non-Catholic, wedding taking place (one bride, only one groom) I would likely attend the reception at least, though not without expressing my sadness and in no way indicating approval.

However, in this instance I would ask him point-blank if the little threesome will be continuing after the “wedding.” If he says yes, then I would have to tell him that the situation is morally repugnant (not to mention fraudulent, a sham…) and you cannot be a party to it. If he swears to you that it’s an actual marriage (though non-sacramental) then, if I were convinced, I would likely hold my nose and perhaps attend, if only the reception.

In any event, I would be praying my head off, as I am sure you are. (We’ve had several irregular marriage situations in my family, and, though my parents never cut off communication with the family members in question, they never attended. Thank God I’ve always lived too far away!)

I’ll pray for you and your son.

Peace!
 
No one is interested in the OP calling her Bishop? I am.

I also would be interested in her talking to qualified, orthodox canonist.

I have no interest in her talking to Fr. Feelgood or getting her information from sentimental softheads on the internet.
 
It doesn’t matter about the so called three some.

What matters is the son is marrying outside the Church.

Being there for you child does not mean that you help him to do wrong.
I don’t agree that attending is validating it. It is being there for your child through thick and thin. That’s different from validating it.
How does it not validate it? Of course its putting a sign of approval on it.
Instead, consider that you’re not doing his soul any good by being a mute witness to his sins. You may be actually doing good by standing up to it, clearly articulating your objection, and then praying mightily for him.
Tough love is hard you don’t get that fuzzy warm feeling.
 
In my opinion, shunning, as practiced by some Christian Sects is usually ineffective, and even more strongly drives the shunned into their irregular position. This is certainly an event that I would not want to celebrate and again in my opinion going to the reception is more of a celebration than the wedding service itself. ( non-Catholic weddings are often pretty sterile events.)

I would voice my reservations quite vocally, but would attend the wedding itself, but not the reception, after telling my child that I was coming not because of my joy and approval, but because he was my child and I loved him despite his piccadilos. I would let him know ahead of time that he should not expect to come home and stay overnight, but that out of common hospitality he, his wife, and any children were welcome to visit and even have a meal. After all some people even welcome strangers who visit and who always knows what kind of spotted life they may be living beyond ones oversight.

As for wanting a ruling from the Bishops, it would not make life any easier, just the decision. I am old enough to remember when we Catholics shunned these type of events and the shunning did not ease any of the pain on either side of the issue, nor did it lead to many changes of hearts.

We owe it to our kids to be up front with our opinions of their behavior. Even that can lead to hitches in the relationship, but it remains in my mind the minimum required.

I have a son who co-habited and then married outside the Church. He asked my wife and I what we thought before hand and we told him very plainly. My so-called DIL let us know that we should change our principles because it would make my son happy. She was told in no uncertain terms that life doesn’t work that way. We still have a relationship with him, her, and our grandchildren, but she has never forgiven us for our stance and the relationship is strained. We did attend the wedding and my DIL is unhappy because my wife felt so sad she cried all through the whole event and attracted attention away from the bride who, after all, was supposed to be the center of attention (sarcasm here.). If life were perfect we would know we were dead and in heaven. No matter how you play it being a parent can be very painful.
 
No one is interested in the OP calling her Bishop? I am.

I also would be interested in her talking to qualified, orthodox canonist.

I have no interest in her talking to Fr. Feelgood or getting her information from sentimental softheads on the internet.
I disagree with this. Emotional family matters should not be decided on someone’s interpretation of some general rules. Using rules like this in a generic-style interpretation will only hurt the situation. This is a family matter between the OP and her son, only the two of them can truly find each other’s middle ground for mutual reconciliation. The only way to get this point is to keep up contact so an ongoing dialog continues. This situation transcends any legal interpretation of Canon Law.
 
Going to the wedding, or avoiding that and going to the reception is being bandied about as “approving” the lifestyle, or “validating” it; my first question is, in whose eyes?

Certainly not the mother’s; the OP has made that clear.

Assuming that she has spoken openly with her son ( and I don’t think we have information on that one way or another), I seriously doubt that the son, if he is minimally honest with himself, would agree that Mom is doing either of theose.

If she hasn’t spoken openly and frankly with him, then she certainly needs to do so.

Others’ eyes? And who is it that the mother is validating this relationship with - anyone she truly knows? I doubt it.

The comment was made about shunning - something done by some religious sects openly, and others semi-openly; but it is also done by many people in Christian denomenations that would not approve of it; it is a reaction to a violation of a deep moral law.

Show me any statistics that indicate that the shunning causes those who have fallen away to amend their ways and return to the fold. I have seen the effects of shunning, and what they do is drive people further away. In other words, they have the exact opposite effect of what is intended.

The only time that shunning is effective is before the situation is out of hand, in keeping one who is afraid of giving up the family/church/social unit from doing what would cause the shunning; and that is of limited effect. Again, look around, and don’t pick out the one case that runs opposite; look at the totality.

What did Christ teach us? If we look at what actually happened in the case of the son who demanded his inheritance, it helps to understand what the story starts with.

Jewish children had a strict moral duty to care for their parents. When the son demanded his inheritance, he not only violated that law, but he went further; he “disinhertied” his father; he told his father is so many words “You are dead to me”; there could not be a much greater insult to one’s parent.

And what did the father do?

He did not immediately disown his son (he had every right to do so); rather, he gave him his inheritance!

Amd then what did the father do? He waited for his son’s return; and before his son could even beg to be treated as a slave, he brought him back into the family joyously!

There is a line between ignoring the sin of the child, and cutting the child off for his sin. I hear a bit of “You show him who’s right and who’s wrong!” in the comments.

I would guess those who are making them may not have adult children. I do.

I also have relatives whose children have left the Church; several of those children have been shunned.

And guess what? It brought each and every one of them right back to church.

NOT! These families have been split, not for a few years, but for decades; they can barely speak with each other at family gatherings, if the children even show up.

Now that is bringing those kids back in droves! NOT!

I also work with returning Catholics. Kind of amazing the stories I hear about someone - a priest, a nun, a parent cutting the child off for the child’s sinful behavior. Most of those who did the shunning are now long dead, and the one cut off is still not sure why they would or should want to be part of a church that is so judgemental. They admit they made the wrong decision; but they do not see a church which is forgving, but rather one that is condemning.

It is God’s business to condemn. When we take over God’s job, we at the minimum have a problem with pride - whether we admit it or not - and judgmentalism, and we just may be contributing to the loss of a soul.

There is a path somewhere between damning the sinner with faint praise and hating the sin. Cut the child off, and demand that they be the one to crawl back and beg forgiveness, and wait - but don’t hold your breath, because they won’t be coming back.

I wonder how many people who suggest not going to the wedding have used the cold silent treatment on their spouse, or child, or friend when seriously offended - or were treated this way by a parent. Oh, it hurts; it hurts tremendously. But does it cause healing in the one so treated?
 
Show me any statistics that indicate that the shunning causes those who have fallen away to amend their ways and return to the fold. I have seen the effects of shunning, and what they do is drive people further away. In other words, they have the exact opposite effect of what is intended.
waves my family shunned the man I was living in sin with, which opened my eyes to the dangerousness of the relationship I was in. Shunning works, if the situation warrents it. And this case, I think it does.
 
waves my family shunned the man I was living in sin with, which opened my eyes to the dangerousness of the relationship I was in. Shunning works, if the situation warrents it. And this case, I think it does.
I don’t think any of us know the relationship well enough to know if it should be shunned or not. We may know some of the facts, but we cannot say with certainty of the interpretation to the actual context.
 
waves my family shunned the man I was living in sin with, which opened my eyes to the dangerousness of the relationship I was in. Shunning works, if the situation warrents it. And this case, I think it does.
And one case contrary to the large majority never disproves the large majority. It is good that you woke up. Please do not assume that it will work on the next person.

There are children who have been physically grossly abused who have turned out fine; that is not a defense of gross abuse, either.

Cutting someone off because they have violated the moral law can fill the person doing the cutting off with great feelings of self-justification. The evidence of its effectiveness makes it hazardous under the best circumstances.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top