“They had no choice but to accept their child’s circumstances or lose all contact with that child.”
They had a choice - to condemn it as sin. If that meant their son stayed away, that was their son’s business.
“I have no answers, but what do you expect the parents to do? Break off all contact with their child forever while the child continues on alone in their error?”
In the tale of the Prodigal Son, did the Father go sleep with the pigs next to his wayward son? Or did he wait for his son to ‘come to his senses’? Love isn’t making someone comfortable in their sin. You don’t help an alcoholic by pounding down beers with him.
Everyone must act as they see fit. My point is simply that we live in a time when the difficult choices will rebound against each of us. Those who seek solace in uncompromising adherence to their faith will still find themselves at odds with their children. Some of those children may eventually come home. Many will not. It is a very sad state of affairs for everyone. It furthers the dissolution of the family, as well. Everyone loses something. Even within traditionalist families, the parents will often not agree, nor will the other siblings and ancillary family members. It is a tragedy of our time.
The thing is, if family is an overarching value, then the child’s deviation from the parental values is not simply the child’s business. The concept of sin varies even among co-religionists. Unconditional love is a hallmark of Christianity. The rejected child sees hypocrisy in the withdrawal of that love in the name of sin vs. virtue. It is the classic case of the irresistible object and the immoveable force, on both sides. Everyone involved has arguments they deem irrefutable, while refuting the opposing POV. There is no chance of reconciliation without one side caving to other. Compromise is, by definition, impossible. I find it very sad and I don’t see where anyone’s best interests are served.
YMMV