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.

[Frank Sheed]

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.

Sadly, I have been placed in an analogous situation twice. The advantage of having an old Irish priest with a lot of miles on him is that he gives excellent advice (as is given above as well). In both cases, he said that if questioned about my refusal, to simply tell the party that in the eyes of the Church, there is no wedding to speak of! So, for example, would someone attend a birthday party and bring a gift when the person being celebrated doesn't even show up?

The responses I got were incredible. Yes, some of the family was not happy. However, other good, solid Catholics pulled me aside at later events and told me they wish "they had the guts to take that stand." They hadn't for fear of being disliked.

Thanks for posting this NYer. This situation is going to grow more and more common. To consent by your participation or acceptance is giving horrible Witness to the Gospel. I am reminded of a friend--an Orthodox mother-- who told her son she would not attend his wedding if it was not held in a Church, and her son and his fiancee relented. That is tough love!

[Frank Sheed]

Amen, Mother. You realize the full impact of that Gospel (it is a Fr. Corapi favorite). The Prodigal Son is ALL of us! God is filled with Divine Mercy and wants us with Him for eternity. However, WE must take that first step and ask forgiveness. He gave us free will to decline His offer!

[NYer]

Thank you Frank for your witness and testimony. And, like the Orthodox mother, I too would hold my ground.

Saint Monica

"The child of those tears shall never perish."

[trisham]

I am reminded of a friend--an Orthodox mother-- who told her son she would not attend his wedding if it was not held in a Church, and her son and his fiancee relented. That is tough love!

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

It is indeed! A good mother, she has my respect and admiration.

[Frank Sheed]

A hypothetical....

There is a priest. He is asked to "co-preside" at the wedding of his nephew. It is to be held at a Lutheran Church and the woman is divorced. This will be her second marriage and the children resulting will be raised Lutheran.

Can the priest attend and "Witness" the wedding? One last thing, he baptized his nephew and saw him raised in the Faith.

[Frank Sheed]

Thank you, Monica! ;-o)

Letting children play with dynamite might stop them from wailing and from temper tantrums. It is not in their best interest, however. Especially when a soul is at stake. Witness Fr. Corapi's mom, for example. She was St. Monica too.

[cammie]

I'm with sandyeggo and oldandtired...let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

You're not inviting these people into your house to have sex on your living room floor. You're inviting them to a family event.

[NYer]

There is a priest. He is asked to "co-preside" at the wedding of his nephew. It is to be held at a Lutheran Church and the woman is divorced. This will be her second marriage and the children resulting will be raised Lutheran.

No!

[NYer]

You're inviting them to a family event.

So you are saying that you condone their lifestyle, is this correct?

[Palladin]

That is a unique interpretation.

[Palladin]

I can't believe some of the people on this thread. (Not you.)

What ever happened to simple Christian charity.

"Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, that you have done unto Me"...said the Lord and Master.

[Palladin]

I'm with you.

"In the end, there are these three: Faith, Hope, and Charity.

And the greatest of these is Charity."

[trisham]

That was offensive.

[swmobuffalo]

"'m with sandyeggo and oldandtired...let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

You're not inviting these people into your house to have sex on your living room floor. You're inviting them to a family event."


Exactly! I can't figure out how these "families" think that the sin of someone else is somehow going to pervert the gathering. If that were the case, no one would have family gatherings ever!

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I agree. What ever happened to 'love the sinner, hate the sin'?

[jjm2111]

I think this sort of thing has to be taken on a case by case basis. There are, perhaps, times when inviting them over is the best course of action and times when not inviting them over would be.

If the homosexual relative couldn't keep it together during the event and would continually fawn over the "boyfriend" then it would be no, to protect MY family. If I thought that being a Christ-like (to the best of my pathetic ability) witness would serve the relative best, I'd invite him.

In any event, each situation like that would require much prayer.

[Frank Sheed]

Jesus told the Truth. All of it, friend...

Luke, chapter 6 "But woe to you that are rich, for you have received you
Luke, chapter 6 . "Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger.
Luke, chapter 6 u shall hunger. "Woe to you that laugh now, for you shall mourn and
Luke, chapter 6 . "Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so
Luke, chapter 10 . "Woe to you, Chora'zin! woe to you, Beth-sa'ida! for i
Luke, chapter 10 you, Chora'zin! woe to you, Beth-sa'ida! for if the mighty works do
Luke, chapter 11 "But woe to you Pharisees! for you tithe mint and rue an
Luke, chapter 11 s. Woe to you Pharisees! for you love the best seat in t
Luke, chapter 11 s. Woe to you! for you are like graves which are not s
Luke, chapter 11 And he said, "Woe to you lawyers also! for you load men with burd
Luke, chapter 11 s. Woe to you! for you build the tombs of the prophets
Luke, chapter 11 n. Woe to you lawyers! for you have taken away the key

atthew, chapter 11 . "Woe to you, Chora'zin! woe to you, Beth-sa'ida! for
Matthew, chapter 11 ou, Chora'zin! woe to you, Beth-sa'ida! for if the mighty works done
Matthew, chapter 23 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! beca
Matthew, chapter 23 n. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for yo
Matthew, chapter 23 . "Woe to you, blind guides, who say,
Matthew, chapter 23 . "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for
Matthew, chapter 23 ! "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for
Matthew, chapter 23 . "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for
Matthew, chapter 23 . "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for

[Frank Sheed]

He couldn't attend of course, and it broke his heart in more ways than one. It was a long story...

[Frank Sheed]

We have been taught today that the greatest sin is "intolerance."

F

[old and tired]

Frank, I really can't make any sense of your citations. The Pharisees were EXACTLY the sort of folk who would deny people entrance to their homes because the potential guests didn't meet the definition of holiness as outlined in Jewish law.