Posted on 03/27/2007 10:09:04 AM PDT by NYer
Q. In your response about whether a homosexual relative’s male partner should be included in family gatherings, you gave the same response we received from other trusted Catholic sources after much prayer. We have held our ground (which was extremely hard) and have become unpopular with that side of the family. Yet, our family is not exposed to this sinful situation because now only the relative, and not his partner, is invited to family gatherings.
Our question is, should we view differently a relative on the other side of the family who has lived with her boyfriend for four years (they have a 3 year old son)? Marriage could remedy their sinful situation. They have always attended family gatherings, and she writes Christmas notes and includes “family” photos. I can see a gradual desensitizing happening, and this is not what we want for our family. What are we to do at this point?
R. Morally speaking, the two situations are virtually the same, though one could argue that the same-sex relationship is worse since it involves acts contrary to nature and it cannot be remedied by marriage. Be that as it may, the heterosexual relative is living in objective mortal sin and to include her in family get-togethers not only signals approval of, or at least indifference to her immoral lifestyle but, as you said, it also desensitizes the moral consciences of those witnessing her actions. For example, how does one tell a teenage daughter or son not to live with another person outside of marriage when they see this relative doing just that and being treated no differently than a married person?
So, no, you should not view the two situations differently, but since you have already, at least publicly, given the appearance of accepting the sinful arrangement of the relative and her boyfriend, it will be, to use your words, “extremely hard” to speak out now against them. If you think you were unpopular with some of the family for your stance on the same-sex couple, wait ‘til you weigh in on the opposite-sex duo. We’re not saying that you shouldn’t be consistent in opposing sexual immorality; you should. But it will be more difficult this time because the latter situation is much more prevalent these days than the former situation, and because many of those who apparently see no moral problem with heterosexual violations, of the divine plan for life and love are still squeamish about accepting homosexual behavior among family members. In other words, while you might get some support for refusing to endorse the same-sex lifestyle, that support will be much less when you object to fornication, even though some family members may agree with you privately.
In making your decision, you will have to ask yourself, Do I want to be popular with family members or with Jesus? Recall that it was Jesus who said, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:37-38). The Lord also warned: “Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this faithless and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels” (Mark 8:38).
These hard sayings of the Lord are not often quoted these days and, if they should appear in a Sunday Gospel, they are usually ignored or glossed over in the homily because the message might be disturbing to those who think that the strongest words Christ ever spoke were, “Love one another as I have loved you.”
Lest anyone think that we dispense this advice from an ivory tower, be it noted that we have for some years declined to invite a daughter’s live-in boyfriend to our home or to family get-togethers. The daughter is welcome as we try to persuade her to abandon her sinful lifestyle, but her male companion is not. Furthermore, we have in recent months declined to attend the weddings of first a nephew and then a niece because they were being married before a justice of the peace, which for baptized Catholics is a mortal sin.
Some family members have taken the same stance, but others have attended the weddings either because they did not want to disturb family harmony, because hey are not sensitive to the obligation of a Catholic to adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church, or because they do not recognize that their cooperation in this sinful event could be a source of scandal.
Are we being judgmental in taking this position? Yes, but not of the motives of the persons involved, which Jesus forbids and on which He alone will render judgment, but rather of their actions, which are contrary to what the Lord teaches. To suggest that one cannot take a stand against violations of the marriage laws of the Church is to say that one cannot take a stand against other moral evils of the time either, such as abortion, racism, and sexual abuse of children.
While it would be one thing to invite an unmarried relative and her live-in boyfriend to stay overnight at one's home or to stay in their home as their guest, it is another thing to invite them to a family gathering, such as a picnic. After all, it is very common for a young persons to bring dates to family gatherings. I don't think that permitting someone's live-in boyfriend to accompany her to such a gathering constitutes approval of their union. On the other hand, making a big issue out of the whole thing by disinviting the boyfriend does not seem prudent.
There, fixed that.
So if open sodomy and fornication are not cause for shunning, where is the line drawn today among open minded Christians?
Sex on the living room floor in front of everybody? Offering everyone an after-dinner sharing of the bong? Having a sexual relation with your sibling? Abandonment of family to take up a life of pole-dancing and cocaine flings? Making a living as a hitman? Practicing "medicine" as an abortionist? Keeping workers at your business penned in like slaves? Beating your children and wife?
Surely there must be somethings which are still beyond the pale, and not an "opportunity to witness".
So if open sodomy and fornication are not cause for shunning, where is the line drawn today among open minded Christians?
Sex on the living room floor in front of everybody? Offering everyone an after-dinner sharing of the bong? Having a sexual relation with your sibling? Abandonment of family to take up a life of pole-dancing and cocaine flings? Making a living as a hitman? Practicing "medicine" as an abortionist? Keeping workers at your business penned in like slaves? Beating your children and wife?
Surely there must be somethings which are still beyond the pale, and not an "opportunity to witness".
So if open sodomy and fornication are not cause for shunning, where is the line drawn today among open minded Christians?
Sex on the living room floor in front of everybody? Offering everyone an after-dinner sharing of the bong? Having a sexual relation with your sibling? Abandonment of family to take up a life of pole-dancing and cocaine flings? Making a living as a hitman? Practicing "medicine" as an abortionist? Keeping workers at your business penned in like slaves? Beating your children and wife?
Surely there must be somethings which are still beyond the pale, and not an "opportunity to witness".
So many people do not understand the Gospel about judgement.
Christ did not say "don't judge". He said, if you judge, be prepared to be judged by the same standard you are using; and that before you judge, first clean-up your own life (St. Matthew 7.1-5). He also said "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge just judgment." (St. John 7.24)
Christ's message is to live justly and judge justly, so that you can discriminate between right and wrong and thus be a light of right behavior to the world. Too many people are eager to judge others, but are not just with themselves. They condemn the sodomite, but wallow in fornication and adultery.
But if we did not judge, we could never apply this advice: "By their fruits you shall know them." (St. Matthew 7.16)
What you say makes sense to me.
But that isn't what was said, was it?
The message was not "Begone, you sinners." It was "You are welcome to come over, but we refuse to recognize your trial marraige to your lover, therefore they are not welcome to join us until they move out of your house, because we refuse to pretend that you are a normal couple entitled to the respect a normal couple deserves."
It is the same message that should be given to divorced people. As individuals, it is fine to have them over. But it is wrong to pretend they are married and invite them as a couple, when they are really adulterers living in sin. All that recognizing divorcee-adulterers and people living in concubinage, and sodomites living together as legitimate relationships does is harden these people in their sin by deluding them into thinking they have done something socially acceptable, and not just acceptable, but praiseworthy and good.
Did Christ have any association with sinners?
Short answer, no.
Long answer, yes, with two conditions - (1) the woman have her marriage annulled, if possible, so that she is actually qualified to be married, (2) the couple promise to raise their children as Catholics.
Exactly - a faily event - now open your eyes - you are pretending they are a family when they are not. Its like inviting a parapalgeic to play tackle football - its something they are not suited for, and it will only get them hurt worse in the end, no matter how much earnest desire and good will they have to be included.
Because it makes everyone pretend that serious social sins are really nothing, and spreads the acceptance of these sins.
Once divorced and remarried people are socially acceptable, for example, its not such a big deal to get divorced and remarried yourself.
Not intolerance, but intolerance of sin.
This isn't a matter of condemning someone for a singular act, but refusing to accept a habitual sin someone has no intention of repenting or changing from.
But no one said exclude sinners!
They said do not dignify social sin (that is a sin committed habitually by two people) with social acceptance.
Would you do the accounting for an abortion clinic? How about the tax accounting for a live-in or homosexual couple? Aren't both just as a bad of sins for yourself - to be an accomplice to the habitual mortal sins of others?
Don't commit liberal-speak! She is a human being, not a "gay" (that's an adjective). She happens to also be a human who commits a habitual mortal sin - oral sodomy. But that doesn't not make her anything but human.
There is no such thing as gay, straight, homosexual, or heterosexual. There are humans who are inclined to various temptations (kleptomania, nymphomania, for example), and there are humans who commit sins by giving in to those temptations.
What is the point of your question?
Everyone has associations with sinners, because all have sinned. Some however, choose to turn a blind eye to sin and ignore the fact that their brothers and sisters are rushing headlong towards eternal death in hell, others desire its correction in them.
Yes, precisely. It lends credence to their lifestyle.
"Because it makes everyone pretend that serious social sins are really nothing, and spreads the acceptance of these sins.
Yes, precisely. It lends credence to their lifestyle."
Right, whatever. It's great to be so judgmental, be sure to mention that in your next confessions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.