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.
Long live Benedict XVI! That book is on my (too long) list of books to get.
If a couple is living in sin, a priest will not give absolution until the couple no longer lives in sin.
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...
*************
Ah! :)
***********
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.
My statement stands.
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
Thanks!
Two sodomites, or a man and woman cohabitating without benefit of clergy are not a family.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
"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.
Many husbands will attest to that!
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.