Bookmarking forever!
Thanks for posting.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Personally I'd say the current issue is worse to which to expose "the family" (I suppose that is the immediate family, which includes children).
They are making babies against the latter's will and bringing them into the world in inideal situations. Their situation is IMO more tenuous. Encouraging bringing innocent children into bad situations is not good.
But that's JMHO!
"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."
This is interesting. I've never seen this take on the "judgementalism". It's always been "how dare you ever judge anything!" At least these days, of a PC world. Which often include "Christians" always repeating the mantra of never "judging", which even means apparently never speaking out against their actions!
(I'm not a Catholic, so maybe it's normal for you all to see it as "motive" vs. "action", but I've never heard this delineation.)
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!
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.
Thank you. I am currently having difficulties with my son who is living with his girlfriend. I have refused to allow her into my home. My son recently told us he was not going to marry her and now it appears he might. I will still refuse to allow her into my home. My wife and I are besides ourselves with grief.
Note the date for this meditation... I was stunned.
Benedictus: Day to Day With Pope Bendict XVI. Magnificat. Ed.: Rev. Peter John Cameron, O.P., Ignatius Press. 2006. pg. 102
Love and Correction. March 27th.
Anger is not necessarily always in contradiction with love. A father, for instance, sometimes has to speak crossly to his son so as to prick his conscience, just BECAUSE he loves him. And he would fall short of his loving obligation and his will to love if, in order to makes things easier for the other person, and also for himself, he avoided the task of putting him right sometimes by making a critical intervention in his life. We know that spoiled children, to whom everthing has been permitted, are often in the end quite unable to come to terms with life, because later on life treats them quite differently, and because they have never learned to discipline themselves, to get themselves on the right track. Or if, for instance, because I want to be nice to him, I give to an addict the drugs he wants instead of weaning him off them (which would seem to him very hard treatment), then in that case you cannot talk of real love. 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.
Benedictus: Day to Day With Pope Benedict XVI. Magnificat. Ed.: Rev. Peter John Cameron, O.P., Ignatius Press. 2006. pg. 102
Love and Correction. March 27th.
Anger is not necessarily always in contradiction with love. A father, for instance, sometimes has to speak crossly to his son so as to prick his conscience, just because he loves him. And he would fall short of his loving obligation and his will to love if, in order to makes things easier for the other person, and also for himself, he avoided the task of putting him right sometimes by making a critical intervention in his life. We know that spoiled children, to whom everthing has been permitted, are often in the end quite unable to come to terms with life, because later on life treats them quite differently, and because they have never learned to discipline themselves, to get themselves on the right track. Or if, for instance, because I want to be nice to him, I give to an addict the drugs he wants instead of weaning him off them (which would seem to him very hard treatment), then in that case you cannot talk of real love. 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.
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...
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.