[quote="Apollos, post:14, topic:203972"]
I don't intend to sound contentious in this response, but I do sincerely want to continue this discussion.
This isn't about emotions; it's about standing up for what is right.
Indeed; however, doing what is right requires discernment and prudence. Emotions are part of that. My point is that we do not always have to go to war to do what is right.
Saul's soul was not won by some Christian professing unmitigated Truth.
No, his soul was won by a flash of light from Heaven and Jesus asking Saul why Saul was persecuting Jesus - the direct intervention of God. I'm not sure how God's direct intervention is relevant by analogy to how we should approach people under any given set of circumstances.
Also, you were responding to my assertion about not coming across as angry. We're not actually sure whether Jesus expressed anger or sorrow or somethng else when He spoke His words to Saul. There is a note in the USCCB citation to Acts 26:14 that Jesus was communicating senselessness and ineffectiveness of any opposition to the divine influence in his life.
So, in the case of Saul, I'd speculate that Jesus simply confronted him with the unshielded Truth, and that was sufficient for Saul. However, I don't see any basis to believe that Jesus treated him in anger, and as a result Saul converted.
Therefore, if you wish to take this example as the model for converting others, I'd say it's the simple presentation of the Truth. Call a rose a rose, but not necessarily with getting upset.
The gay family member is not exactly washing his feet with his tears and wiping them with his hair.
Agreed. However, the sinner's egregious behavior should not influence a Christian's inner peace, nor his or her concern for the sinner's soul in excercising prudential judgement.
Anger is the impulse to correct an injustice. It ceases once the injustice is corrected. Suppressing the impulse to correct an injustice is precisely what the gay family member is hoping the parents will do.
Again, agreed. However, how we respond is what is at issue. I believe that one might and should try correct the injustice without going to direct head-to-head confrontation right away. Sometimes you must fight; sometimes you do not have to. NEVER do you give up the Truth or give in to the manipulative behavior. I guess I'm saying that it is entirely possible to do what a manipulator wants, not because you were manipulated, but because you came to an independent conclusion. The key difference is that the conclusion was independent and based on True principle, such that under a different set of circumstances a conclusion of confrontation would have been warranted.
No, I never lost sight of that. If you break into my house at night to kill me, I will kill you first no matter whose beloved child you are. Granted, I don't think blowing the gay family member's head off is the most prudent way to handle this, but one would not be doing anyone a favor by playing along with him even for a minute. It would send the message that his objections are valid, and to do so would be a sin against charity, justice, truth, and natural law, not to mention a total failure to perform the first and third Spiritual Works of Mercy.
I agree that sending this person the wrong message is wrong. However, there's a difference between sending the wrong message and allowing someone to assume somthing - though I agree that allowing in this case is a factor in making the judgment of how to respond in Truth. I disagree that it's automatically a sin, or against the first and third works of mercy.
As an aside, I might actually allow a murderer to kill me. For if I kill him, then I may be removing his ability to repent and he may very well go to Hell for having murderous intent, though I have hope for eternal life. Depends, though. Things are different if I'm defending my family, or myself for my family.
That strikes me as contrived to the point of being comical. Send the child to the Catholic school AND continue the dialog - if you think it's worth it.
There is nothing objectively contrived or comical about my analysis. While I might not be correct, I have based my opinions upon reason and I believe authoritative teachings of the Church. I respectfully submit that construing my conclusions in this way is therefore unjust, and little more than name calling. In fact, I would assert that you are attempting to shut me down by stating that my arguments are "contrived" and "comical," which are not really counter arguments based on reason but rather a statement of your opinion regarding your lack of esteem for my position.
Unfortunately, that kind of language tends to be insulting and thus detracts from your ability to actually convince me - or anyone reading your argument - that you are actually right.
Now, I'm not actually insulted. I have a pretty thick skin. However, I am questioning your goals.
Are you trying to convince someone to change their way of acting or thinking? If so, then I respectfully submit that you will be more successful if you are more reasoned and more considerate.
Are you simply trying to stand for what is right without regard to whether you convince will someone? If so, then I respectfully submit that this goal is not in full accord with our calling to bring the Good News to everyone, or with 1 Peter 3:15 - "Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame."
Perhaps something else. I won't assume what you are actually trying to accomplish.