Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Catholic Replies: Inviting relatives (living in sin) to family gatherings
The Wanderer (sorry - no link) | March 22, 2007 | James J. Drummey

Posted on 03/27/2007 10:09:04 AM PDT by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-155 next last
To: Frank Sheed

Long live Benedict XVI! That book is on my (too long) list of books to get.


101 posted on 03/27/2007 9:21:12 PM PDT by ELS (Vivat Benedictus XVI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Palladin

If a couple is living in sin, a priest will not give absolution until the couple no longer lives in sin.


102 posted on 03/27/2007 9:32:10 PM PDT by ELS (Vivat Benedictus XVI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The reply is theologically correct.

However, Jesus and his mother would probably have invited them and loved them. If they are rejected, their hearts will harden. IF they are loved, and quietly prayed for, there is a chance the Lord will touch their hearts to change.

I mean, if you keep all the sinners out of family reunions, there'd be no one there...


103 posted on 03/28/2007 1:19:58 AM PDT by LadyDoc (liberals only love politically correct poor people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank Sheed
To put it another way: love, in the true sense, is not always a matter of giving way, being soft and just acting nice. In that sense, a sugar-coated Jesus or a God who agrees to everything and is never anything but nice and friendly is no more than a caricature of real love. Because God loves us, because he wants us to grow into the truth, he must necessarily make demands on us and must also correct us. God has to do those things we refer to in the image of the "wrath of God," that is, he has to resist us in our attempts to fall from our own best selves and when we pose a threat to ourselves.

*************

Ah! :)

104 posted on 03/28/2007 3:35:24 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: NYer
I would allow my daughter to visit, but not her paramour. She nearly ran off with someone in December but I put my foot down, reminded her (and the boyfriend) that we are Catholics and told them that the only way she was leaving home was if they were married through the Catholic Church. The boyfriend departed the following week .... without her.

***********

That must have been very hard to do, but you saw the result. Your daughter may well be relieved that you had the courage to stand up for her. Certainly she must be inspired by your good example and strength of character. When I look back at myself as a teen and young woman, there were times when I would have perhaps not welcomed my parent's interference, but would have been relieved by it. I believe that is what parenting is all about.

105 posted on 03/28/2007 3:49:44 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: cammie

My statement stands.


106 posted on 03/28/2007 3:52:43 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: ELS; trisham; NYer

The citation in posts #57 and #58 (sorry for the duplicate!) is from a book of daily meditations put out by the same company and editor who does the abbreviated Liturgy of the Hours called "The Magnificat." It costs $25, I think (maybe less). The quotes were assembled by Fr. Cameron, a Dominican, and are all from the Pope. Some are very complex and theological. Some just "click" instantly in your brain. I was just amazed that this meditation appeared yesterday in light of this discussion. It is just "food for thought" from a brilliant theologian...and holy Pope.

F


107 posted on 03/28/2007 8:10:02 AM PDT by Frank Sheed ("Shakespeare the Papist" by Fr. Peter Milward, S.J.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Frank Sheed

Thanks!


108 posted on 03/28/2007 8:22:13 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: sandyeggo
They are still family

Two sodomites, or a man and woman cohabitating without benefit of clergy are not a family.

109 posted on 03/28/2007 11:28:07 AM PDT by Andrew Byler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: sandyeggo
Having divorced and remarried people around me doesn't mean I have any plans to do it myself.

Maybe not, but you are teaching your children and others that it is nothing, and your are giving spiritual succor and and comfort to people who are objectively habitual sinners.

Its like saying just because I accept trash being strewn all over my lawn and street, and graffiti all over my house, doesn't mean I am going to litter or vandalize someone else's property. No it doesn't, but it does mean you live in a dump!

110 posted on 03/28/2007 11:31:26 AM PDT by Andrew Byler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

Comment #111 Removed by Moderator

To: Palladin; swmobuffalo
How do these people know what sins their relatives are guilty of? Just because two people live together, it does not necessarily follow that they are having sexual relations of any sort.

To the first question, it really doesn't matter. The outward appearance is what causes the problem in society, not what they actually do (which causes their problems with God).

To the second question, single men and women living together under one roof are living in a near occasion of sin. It really doesn't matter whether they do anything or not, the very act of living together as a pretended family is what is truly objectionable, not what they do in the bedroom. It is not acceptable to put oneself purposefully into a near occasion of sin.

112 posted on 03/28/2007 11:36:39 AM PDT by Andrew Byler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: LadyDoc; NYer
Jesus and his mother would probably have invited them and loved them.

That seems like a really wild assumption and projection of your own feelings onto our Lord. Jesus commanded sinners to reform their lives: "go and sin no more". And He did not have a house to invite people to: "the son of man has no place to lay his head."

If they are rejected, their hearts will harden. IF they are loved, and quietly prayed for, there is a chance the Lord will touch their hearts to change.

Why do you assume laying down the law is not loving? Do you not believe in tough love and discipline?

In fact, it is quite unloving to treat people as though you have no regard for their eternal fate when they are open public sinners. Open public sinners should be publicly rebuked or corrected. To not do so is hypocritical and unloving.

113 posted on 03/28/2007 11:48:43 AM PDT by Andrew Byler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: NYer; sandyeggo
This is my daughter's home ... just as much as it is mine. She is always welcome to spend the day, night, week, month or as much time as is required ... She attends Mass 2x each year - Christmas and Easter.

You are far more tolerant than I would be. If grown children want to live under the same roof as their parents as a family, they should participate in all family activities - eating breakfast and dinner together, going to Church together, enjoying leisure activities together.

If they are just in it for free food, a bed, and access to a washer and dryer, and openly disrespect the family by not acting as though they are part of it by refusing to join in normal family activites, they should be welcomed to go find a place of their own to live, and to come by to visit when they want so long as they don't disrupt what the rest of the family is doing.

A family cannot have two sets of rules for different sets of children just because one is older, just like the household's cook only cooks one meal for all to share, and not short orders for everyone to have what they wish.

And this especially applies to going to Mass.

114 posted on 03/28/2007 11:57:14 AM PDT by Andrew Byler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: sandyeggo

I have always thought that "The Wanderer" was a tad harsh when it comes to things like this.

I was raised Catholic and got married outside the Church. (in COURT, no less!) It would be a heck of a thing if my family refused to associate with me.
It also makes me think about 'closet sinners'. There are plenty of people in a state of mortal sin and an outsider cannot KNOW this by simply looking at said person.
So...if you can keep your sins under wraps you don't get ostracized from the family?

(Sorry if this offends anyone, but I grew up with more people like this than I care to recall. They always seemed to want to put on a big show about what great Catholics they were and how horrible everyone else was. Ugh. It gets tiresome after a while)


115 posted on 03/28/2007 12:16:27 PM PDT by the lastbestlady (I now believe that we have two lives; the life we learn with and the life we live with after that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LadyDoc; sandyeggo
I mean, if you keep all the sinners out of family reunions, there'd be no one there...

LOL! That's certainly true.

I still think, after having read all these posts, that it's a highly case-by-case thing. Most people here seem to be obsessed with the sexual sins of their family members, but there are certainly others - such as my earlier example of a family member "escorting" girls into an abortuary, and I think there can be occasions where one would not want these people in one's house. Or where inviting them would seem like condoning their behavior.

But I think there are other situations where kindness is the best remedy. St. Augustine's mother did not stop speaking to him and cut him dead because of his improper behavior and life; she spoke to him about her concerns, she prayed for him constantly, and eventually, she "won."

The Wanderer can be a little rigorist on these matters.

116 posted on 03/28/2007 12:34:19 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Andrew Byler

"To the second question, single men and women living together under one roof are living in a near occasion of sin. It really doesn't matter whether they do anything or not, the very act of living together as a pretended family is what is truly objectionable, not what they do in the bedroom. It is not acceptable to put oneself purposefully into a near occasion of sin."



Not when one (or both) of the parties is uninterested and unable to have sexual relations.


117 posted on 03/28/2007 12:35:02 PM PDT by the lastbestlady (I now believe that we have two lives; the life we learn with and the life we live with after that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

Comment #118 Removed by Moderator

Comment #119 Removed by Moderator

To: the lastbestlady

Many husbands will attest to that!


120 posted on 03/28/2007 12:46:42 PM PDT by Palladin (Surrender is not an option.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-155 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson