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.
Yes, there are so many Eunuchs and Castrati running around the US today. (/sarcasm)
The whole point of this exercise is not to try to determine who is or is not in a state of grace.
The purpose is to ostracize people living in a habitual state of public sin who are flaunting the morals of the Church and society and expecting everyone to approve of their behavior and act like nothing wrong is going on.
It is not an attack on sinners. It is an attempt to eradicate approval of people living in a state of habitual sin.
Of course, the Wanderer didn't suggest not speaking to children like this. It suggested not inviting their concubines to dinner and family events as if they are a formal part of the extended family. St. Monica's kindness towards St. Augustine undoubtedly did not include ignoring his lifestyle. Is there any record of St. Monica offering St. Augustine and his Concubine a bed for the night?
Why the assumption that "tough love" is not loving? The Bible says every son the Father loves, He scourges.
Love =/= acquiesence
In a 2005 meeting with Bishops, Pope Benedict XVI said regarding living together:
"..., "the Church encourages these members of the faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship ... as friends, as brother and sister," He was reiterating a stance held by his predecessor, John Paul II, that divorced Catholics who remarry cannot have sex with their new partners if they want to receive the Eucharist."
A life of celibacy and abstinence would seem to be the order of the day.
Your post brings to mind the parable Our Lord told of the Prodigal Son.
First of all, in the Hebrew culture of that time, the younger son had no right to even ask for his inheritance. It was always given, after the father, to the oldest son to distribute as he wished. So it was already arrogance for the younger son to demand it.
Secondly, Jesus said that the father went out daily looking in the distance to see if his son was coming. This indicates a loving father who seeks each day for the return of his erring son. Like all parents of fallen children, the father was always hoping and , by implication, always praying.
We all know what happened when the son finally came home from his dissolute living, having squandered the inheritance and his family's reputation as well. Only the oldest son was unhappy--everyone else was rejoicing.
I admit there is a difference in that the son didn't come home to eat and drink while he was busy carousing.
But it isn't lost on me that the father sought him every day with a heart that loved and was ready to forgive IF ONLY his son returned in a penitential way. And I notice that until that happened, there was a separation of the father and son--one brought on by the son himself.
I don't see scourging being the human response, as vindication belongs to the Lord and Him only.
Nobody is suggesting offering anybody a bed for the night. I thought we were talking about family dinners, and unless yours are a lot different from mine, none of the guests, married or otherwise, are sleeping together.
"It is not acceptable to put oneself purposefully into a near occasion of sin."
It also isn't acceptable to be cruel and hateful to those family members whose actions aren't "acceptable". That is sin in and of its self. Showing love is one thing, it isn't showing acceptance of the sin. That is the point.
Precisely!
If your family all lives in different places, clearly a normal family would try to have as many people stay under the household roof as possible, so that farflung relations could be together to socialize. Mine certainly does.
In any case, the point is that live-in partners should not be welcomed in as part of the family, since they are most emphatically not. In fact, they are thumbing their nose at the family by refusing marriage or living in a sodomite relationship which it is impossible to normalize with the Church. Its like inviting someone over who you know is going to insult your wife and call your children stupid.
Again, concubines, 2nd wives, and partners in sodomy are most definitely not family members. Why can't you see such a simple point?
The article, and those of us agreeing with it, have not said "throw out your relations and shun them", but "do not invite over their partners in crime, and do not dignify their sinful relations by recognizing them as a couple".
"have not said "throw out your relations and shun them", "
Yes, several posters have said exactly that. And again, family gatherings may be the ONLY Christian witness these unwanted people may get. And as a 2nd wife, I deeply resent the implication made in your remark.
So, I take it Ronald Reagan would have been personna non grata in your house. Or at least Nancy would have.
This is an interesting thread. I read through almost the entire thing. Unfortunately I was a bit late. I think it is quite difficult. I would invite my family members to gatherings depending on their sins and a couple conditions. For example, if their sins are mortal such as working at an abortion clinic, openly fornicating (meaning the family knows as they live together), or openly in a homoexual relationship, I may not invite them. Now, I may invite them, but I would make certain to speak with them as Jesus would regarding their sins. If they are living together, I would either invite just the relative and not their boyfriend or girlfriend, or I would invite both of them, but make sure they know they are engaging in sinful behavior. If they are openly practicing homosexual behavior, I would invite them but not their partner and ensure that they know their relationship is considered gravely immoral before God. It's tough to stick to these things, but my family is very religious and conservative on both sides so they would most likely agree with me for the most part.
Its a shame "conservatives" allowed them to make us so accepting of divorce and remarriage. The practice is a plague.
So now we see why the knife cut so closely!
Resent the remarks all you want. Jesus says quite clearly that those who divorce and remarry commit adultery.
Canon law may allow for distinctions in this matter. There is such a thing as a legitimate annulment.
Maybe it's better not to try to understand the specifics about someone you don't know personally.
Gee. As we say in New York, who died and made you boss?
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.