Catholic Replies: Inviting relatives (living in sin) to family gatherings

The Wanderer (sorry - no link) | March 22, 2007 | James J. Drummey

[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.

[Andrew Byler]

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.

If that were the case, she wouldn't be a second wife, would she? An annulled marriage is no marriage at all. I'm just using the term she used for herself. Why are you castigating me for that?

[Andrew Byler]

Gee. As we say in New York, who died and made you boss?

The typical sort of excuse from someone who wants to pass off the quotation of truth as subjective opinion.

[Andrew Byler]

I simply meant that there are people because of age, medications, health problems etc. that are NOT having sexual relations even though they may be living together.

Yes, all these things are so common among the hordes of young people shacking up today in modern concubinage. By all means, lets give them the benefit of the doubt on this. Undoubtedly, most of them are suffering from old age, medical problems with their reproductive system, and are taking medications which eliminate their sex drive. Most definitely, lets not judge them as being sinners just because they are living together and sharing a bed. They probably just want to be warm and cuddly at night.

Just like all those young teenage and unmarried 20-something gals taking the birth control pill are "only doing it to regulate their period".

There's a bridge for sale in Brooklyn too. Really pretty and ornate. Will shipe to site of your selection for free with purchase. Wire the money today!

[the lastbestlady]

I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS COMMON!!!!

I'd tell you what I really think, but I would most certainly be banned. Let's leave it at that.

[Running On Empty]

You know, Andrew---we're finished.

I'm moving on, since I can't say what I'm really thinking right now..

[Andrew Byler]

I'd tell you what I really think, but I would most certainly be banned.

Please feel free to. It won't hurt my feelings, and I won't go run and cry about it like so many do.

[Andrew Byler]

You have freepmail.

[old and tired]

Raising children through adulthood, through that point where parents have lost the control they had over their young children, is a humbling experience in a lot of ways, and the process grinds down a lot of preconceived notions.

Sandy, I believe you've hit the nail on the head.

I also think there is probably a difference with very small families where every single person present adds so much more to the gathering. Our family gatherings - like Easter, Christmas, and Thanksgiving - generally have between 30 and 40 for dinner and always more than 50 for dessert. Our children, their spouses, and our grandchildren alone number almost 50, though certainly not everyone comes to everything. We have long since accepted the reality that there were going to be a few "greenies and weenies" we don't know very well at every family celebration, usually brought by someone in their late teens or early twenties. Actually, we wouldn't have it any other way - we want our home to be welcoming, especially to those who may have nowhere else to go.

It is painful for me to remember that our daughters lived with men who were not their husbands, but we always welcomed them into our home on our terms. The relationships were sinful, perhaps even pervasively so. However, certainly not every aspect of those relationships were sinful, and we did see some tenderness and support coming from each of them toward the other. I remember one young man, especially, who wanted nothing more than to marry my daughter, but she was the one resisting. I always made it a point to let each of them know how we felt, but we did not harp on it, I don't think we mentioned it every time we saw them - to do so would have alienated them completely.

Mercifully, Joyfully, these children have returned to the Faith.

[swmobuffalo]

"Jesus says quite clearly that those who divorce and remarry commit adultery."

But the exception to that was?

You are probably one of the most priggish, uptight, judgmental and hypocritical posters I've run acrossed in awhile. Your claim to perfection is hollow.

[Andrew Byler]

But the exception to that was?

There is no exception. Perhaps you are thinking of the word "porneia" in Greek, often mistranslated adultery in St. Matthew 5.32 and 19.10. It is certainly not adultery - see St. Matthew 15.19, and St. Mark 7.21-22 where the words for both acts are used in a list (the word for adultery is "moicheia"). The mistranslation is merely wishful thinking on the part of Protestants about what they would like the Bible to say, so as to justify their immorality before man. "Porniea" is actually an incestuous relationship, as is clearly seen by the use of the word in 1 Corinthians 5.1-5, and also in the parallel of Acts 15.28-29 (where the word is again used) with Leviticus 17 and 18.

I really very much doubt that whatever the first marriage in your situation was, that it was an prima facie invalid marriage of incest.

You are probably one of the most priggish, uptight, judgmental and hypocritical posters I've run acrossed in awhile.

"Am I then become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" (Galatians 4.16)

You are really upset at Catholic morality, not me.

Your claim to perfection is hollow.

I don't recall a claim of perfection. Its certainly a goal (St. Matthew 5.48), but also not yet a reality.

[swmobuffalo]

"claim of perfection"

Said yourself you don't allow "sinners" in your home. That indicates an idea of perfection.

[Andrew Byler]

Said yourself you don't allow "sinners" in your home. That indicates an idea of perfection.

Could you point me to where I said that? I'm not seeing it.

I thought I had said I agree that it is wrong to treat sodomite couples, people living in concubinage, and the divorced and remarried as if they were just equally acceptable alternative living arrangements, and that there is no reason at all to welcome the non-family member of such a grouping into one's home, or to feel obliged to treat them like a real family on par with a married couple, or a couple practicing decent courtship.

I also thought I had said it is wrong to socialize with people who publicly flout morality, and that family members who persist in such wrong-doing should be cut-off as a corrective measure. I believe I gave examples of people like abortionists, hitmen, robbers, rapists, open sodomites or adulterers or the incestuous, prostitutes, pole-dancers, witches and fortune-tellers, drug-dealers, defamers of religion, sellers of immoral articles, abusers of women and children, abusers of workers, and the like.

If that implied some idea that I thought I was perfect, I'm sorry it gave you that impression. The impression I was attempting to communicate is that such people need a public rebuke, and their presence is dangerous to sound morals in others.

Basically, if someone is involved in an activity that traditionally would have resulted in excommunication (or that in Leviticus had a punishment of stoning or burning attached to it), normal people should have nothing to do with them. Most especially, people involved in the four sins that cry to heaven for vengence (murder of the innocent, sodomites, defrauders of workers, abusers of widows and orphans) must be shunned and avoided unless the contact is with an eye towards bringing them to justice.