gay marriage


#21

[quote=fix]You may, but others may not. That is one reason why attending is wrong in most every case.

It may or may not be a scandal depending on several factors, but would the two people being “married” assume you were there to support such an immoral act or to offer correction and be a sign of contradiction to the culture?

Perhaps. Do such funeral rites imply the same thing publicly as a “gay” marriage? A funeral service is not equivalent to a fake marriage. If the same priest attended the relative’s “gay” wedding would that be reasonable?

So, only a simpleton would assume a priest going to a “gay” wedding endorsed the ceremony?

What would it mean? You like the pastries?

That has nothing to do with validating an immoral act.
[/quote]

The “rightness” of your arguments depend on the results of assumptions based on incomplete and erroneous assumptions. Personally, I don’t confine my actions in the performance of my Christian duty solely out of concern that people may make the wrong assumption. I know and grasp that people may reach erroneous conclusions and that can have adverse impact. Concurrently, when I embark on actions whereby erroneous conclusions might reached, I know I have an extra-ordinary responsibility to look for opportunities to mitigate their occurrence.

But I want to stress two points.

  1. A funeral service grounded in the Masonic rite and a gay wedding are equally farcical to a Catholic. If one were to assume that the Priest attending a gay wedding or a masonic funeral rite of a relative were endorsing either “rite” solely on the basis of attendance (or thinking they were their for the food), they would be making a simpleton assumption. Prior to inferring a grievous act or motive, one is called to examine if there is a non-grievoous alternative. In both cases, one doesn’t have to be a genious to find an alternative motive the most likely by a significantly wide margin.

Making the above assumption of endorsement in such a such situation is to me as offensive as when people think that the Priest who is good with the young of the parish is a pedophile. In fact, when one makes assumptions based on incomplete information (especially without taking any action to supplement the information), one is exposing themselves greatly to the near occurrence of sin as they are one small step from verbalizing their erroneous conclusion which is bearing false witness- a grave matter.

  1. Any person who ministers to people living in sin has to expose themselves to the occurence of sin and in some cases exposing themself to the near occassion of sin. I know of non-drinking alcoholics who regularly go to bars to pick up their fallen breathren. Such exposure to something as potentially grievous to them is meritorious and not something to be criticized.

#22

[quote=Orionthehunter]The “rightness” of your arguments depend on the results of assumptions based on incomplete and erroneous assumptions.
[/quote]

We all can read what you wrote.

Personally, I don’t confine my actions in the performance of my Christian duty solely out of concern that people may make the wrong assumption.

So, we should not take into consideration how our actions may be viewed by others?

I know and grasp that people may reach erroneous conclusions and that can have adverse impact. Concurrently, when I embark on actions whereby erroneous conclusions might reached, I know I have an extra-ordinary responsibility to look for opportunities to mitigate their occurrence.

And by going to a topless bar you did that how? Did you wear dark glasses?

A funeral service grounded in the Masonic rite and a gay wedding are equally farcical to a Catholic. If one were to assume that the Priest attending a gay wedding or a masonic funeral rite of a relative were endorsing either “rite” solely on the basis of attendance (or thinking they were their for the food), they would be making a simpleton assumption.

I am sorry but I sharply disagree. A funeral service is “paying respects” without endorsing the denomination, or no religious affliation, of the deceased. Attending a faux “gay” wedding is paying repsect to a false notion. The two are very different.

Making the above assumption of endorsement in such a such situation is to me as offensive as when people think that the Priest who is good with the young of the parish is a pedophile.

I cannot follow this reasoning. In the case of the “gay” wedding one would really have to set aside common sense and right reason to conclude the priest is there for any other reason than to endorse the ceremony.

In fact, when one makes assumptions based on incomplete information (especially without taking any action to supplement the information), one is exposing themselves greatly to the near occurrence of sin as they are one small step from verbalizing their erroneous conclusion which is bearing false witness- a grave matter.

Claiming one is bearing false witness when one clearly is not is also bearing false witness.

  1. Any person who ministers to people living in sin has to expose themselves to the occurence of sin and in some cases exposing themself to the near occassion of sin. I know of non-drinking alcoholics who regularly go to bars to pick up their fallen breathren. Such exposure to something as potentially grievous to them is meritorious and not something to be criticized.

Ok, so you will go to “gay” weddings to evangelize? That seems fair.


#23

From Fix: So we should not take into consideration how our actions may be viewed by others?

Of course not. Let me repeat myself:

Personally, I don’t confine my actions in the performance of my Christian duty solely out of concern that people may make the wrong assumption. I know and grasp that people may reach erroneous conclusions and that can have adverse impact. Concurrently, when I embark on actions whereby erroneous conclusions might reached, I know I have an extra-ordinary responsibility to look for opportunities to mitigate their occurrence.

From Fix: And by going to a topless bar you did that how? Did you wear dark glasses?

I’m telling you that I took no perverse pleasure in being there. I didn’t have to wear dark glasses. Believe me or not. I couldn’t care less. My God and myself know what was in my heart.

From Fix: I am sorry but I sharply disagree. A funeral service is “paying respects” without endorsing the denomination, or no religious affliation, of the deceased. Attending a faux “gay” wedding is paying repsect to a false notion. The two are very different.

Your disagreement is noted. We will have to choose to disagree as I’ve reached the conclusion the a Masonic Rite that is based on pagan rituals if not pagan belief and a gay wedding are equally morrally troubling to me. A Masonic rite service is an affront to the 1st and 2nd commandments. I’m confident that if you had ever attended one, you’d reach the same conclusion. Throughout the unease I felt was palpable.

From Fix: I cannot follow this reasoning. In the case of the “gay” wedding one would really have to set aside common sense and right reason to conclude the priest is there for any other reason than to endorse the ceremony.

This isn’t the first time I’ve failed to effectively communicate myself to you.

From Fix: Claiming one is bearing false witness when one clearly is not is also bearing false witness.

If I were to attend a faux funeral service or a gay wedding, you inferred that my motive was to endorse it, and you were to verbalize your erroneous inference would be bearing false witness.

From Fix: Ok, so you will go to “gay” weddings to evangelize? That seems fair./

Potentially. And you see that if I had done a better job of communicating to you.


#24

I am not saying you took pleasure, I was questioning the prudence of it.

Your disagreement is noted. We will have to choose to disagree as I’ve reached the conclusion the a Masonic Rite that is based on pagan rituals if not pagan belief and a gay wedding are equally morrally troubling to me. A Masonic rite service is an affront to the 1st and 2nd commandments. I’m confident that if you had ever attended one, you’d reach the same conclusion. Throughout the unease I felt was palpable.

Of course, I am no fan of masonic rituals. Can we not agree that attending a funeral service would not be viewed by anyone as endorsement of the ritual but simply respecting the deceased? A wedding is a very different circumstance. When one attends a wedding ceremony one accepts that those in attendence endorse the actions of the two being married. It is a form of validation. Is that not why marriage ceremonies are public?

If I were to attend a faux funeral service or a gay wedding, you inferred that my motive was to endorse it, and you were to verbalize your erroneous inference would be bearing false witness.

No, one may draw conclusions and speculate without bearing false witness. We must be careful not to be legalistic.

Potentially. And you see that if I had done a better job of communicating to you.

How would that occur at such a ceremony? Please offer an example.


#25

“In the presence of God and these witnesses…”

Well, if I choose to be a witness to a sacred vow, it’s hard to say that I fundamentally disagree with what it is promising.

Further, if I truly believe that the participants are harming themselves and the Body of Christ by the very act of their “marrying,” then I am doing nothing loving or charitable by attending their “wedding.”

One can hardly claim to be silently witnessing to these people by attending their wedding, any more than I’d be silently witnessing to a junkie by holding the needle steady while he was shooting up.

Peace.
John


#26

From Fix: How would that occur at such a ceremony? Please offer an example.

From Post #18.

I have a friend who is a confirmed Catholic, was married before, and remarried a non-Catholic and isn’t practicing his faith. He knows full well my views on his situation. We talked about it when he and his new wife were dating, we’ve talked about it since. But I had no qualms about attending their Lutheran marriage ceremony. He is my friend. I want him to get to heaven. And I knew that if I were to avoid his wedding, I’d lose the friendship and the opportunity to ever “minister” to him about how he would be served to get an annulment and come home to the Church. My attendence didn’t imply that I supported the marriage. My attendence was a outward sign that I love him just as the Priest and I said when we attended the funeral I mentioned above.

If a friend or relative of a gay person were faced with similar circumstances and reached the same conclusion, I’d respect his prudence (regardless of which decision he made) especially if I knew him to be a man of prayer. I really think we need to acknowledge that certain people will reach different conclusions in various circumstances and that the answer is not always right. This is why we are given the gift and grace of Prudence.

We can most effectively evangelize to people with whom we develop and maintain a relationship. If by not attending either the above “wedding” or a gay one and it breaks the relationship, one gives up the opportunity to evangelize in teh future.

As I’ve said a couple times in this thread, I don’t think I’d go to a gay wedding for many of the reasons espoused in this thread and some not espoused. I also don’t think I’d knowingly go to another Masonic service for the same reason (I didn’t know it was going to be a Masonic service but I think the Priest who went did as he was a relative of the deceased).

This being said, attendance is not per se, de facto endorsement nor scandalous and I don’t preclude that prudence might move me in both counts if faced with the situation. I also grasp that attending would require me to take extra-ordinary steps to insure that at least the principals (and possibly others) know that my attendance was not an endorsement.


#27

[quote=Orionthehunter]Part 2:

I just thought of another situation where the easy answer wasn’t the right answer. I was at a golf tourney. …Some years, some of them would later decide to go to the strip club. …This one time, I felt moved to go along with them (you should have seen the look of shock). …But near the end of the evening, I leaned over to the guy who had the daughters and said to him “You know, every one of these girls is someone’s daughter.” The look on his face was priceless.

I am curious what the look on your face would have been if he instead responed back – “Then what in the he__ are you doing here?”. My point being: Unless you have a sharp sense of prompting and discernment to back it up, I hardly think that the risk as a Catholic of patronizing such an establishment is worth the risk of giving scandal to others, IMO.

Now i’m sure alot of people might think it was wrong for me to go or will think that I could have said it before they went to the same effect. However, I had no pre-concieved “plan” when I went. I just listened to my heart. I didn’t plan to say the words until they came out. The end of the story: This friend later told me that he never gone back to a strip club, canceled his Playboy subscription, and has never watched another adult movie in his hotel room.

Not to be overly cynical, but what is the assessment of you, along lines of credibility factor as a Catholic, by those other golfers who you attended the strip club with and gave you a look of shock and did not hear your whisper?

The Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways. It is prudence that allows us to make the right decision, especially when it is outside the box. Sometimes it just takes a little faith to listen.

I commend your obedience and listening the Holy Spirit.
[/quote]


#28

[quote=Orionthehunter]We can most effectively evangelize to people with whom we develop and maintain a relationship. If by not attending either the above “wedding” or a gay one and it breaks the relationship, one gives up the opportunity to evangelize in teh future.
[/quote]

Honestly, that sounds very high-minded, but not practical. When the minister, or whomever, says they are now married do you clap? Do you congratulate them? How do you not endorse something while participating?


#29

#30

[quote=connieo]I got in a heated discussion with family members. I said I would never attend a gay wedding, that it would be wrong. I was told that I was a HYPOCRITE AND THAT JESUS ATE AND DRANK WITH SINNERS.Not being a great debater ( or apologist) I insisted that Jesus did eat and drink with sinners , but didn’t stand by and watch them sinning, etc. etc.and that He also told sinners to go and sin no more. What should I have said? Am I correct to say it would be sinful to go? Thanks, Connieo :confused:
[/quote]

The only Sinners Jesus ate and drank with were those who had repented. You see this nonsense of Jesus hanging out with sinners claimed all the time-generally by those rationalzing hanging out with unrepentant sinners


#31

[quote=fix]Honestly, that sounds very high-minded, but not practical. When the minister, or whomever, says they are now married do you clap? Do you congratulate them? How do you not endorse something while participating?
[/quote]

I guess I’m a victim of high mindedness and impracticality.

To answer your question, I wouldn’t clap or congratulate them. That would be an endorsement. And throughout the “ceremony”, I hope I’d have the wisdom and charity to be focused on praying that they find the fallacy of their “union” and not focusing on my repulsion of implications of their “union.”

Regarding your last point, one can go to Mass and not participate. Additionally, attendees of a sacramental wedding are not participants but observants. Not even the Priest is a participant in the sacrament itself but a representative of Christ. Only God and the couple are participants. So I guess my answer is that participating and attending are not the same thing.


#32

[quote=Orionthehunter]I guess I’m a victim of high mindedness and impracticality.

To answer your question, I wouldn’t clap or congratulate them. That would be an endorsement. And throughout the “ceremony”, I hope I’d have the wisdom and charity to be focused on praying that they find the fallacy of their “union” and not focusing on my repulsion of implications of their “union.”

Regarding your last point, one can go to Mass and not participate. Additionally, attendees of a sacramental wedding are not participants but observants. Not even the Priest is a participant in the sacrament itself but a representative of Christ. Only God and the couple are participants. So I guess my answer is that participating and attending are not the same thing.
[/quote]

I am at a loss as how to anyone observing you at that wedding could come to any other conclusion other than that you approve of the union. The idea that you might be able to witness to one of them later if they break up does not seem to undo the fact that you have witnessed to a large group of people that you approve of the union.


#33

[quote=estesbob]I am at a loss as how to anyone observing you at that wedding could come to any other conclusion other than that you approve of the union. The idea that you might be able to witness to one of them later if they break up does not seem to undo the fact that you have witnessed to a large group of people that you approve of the union.
[/quote]

I’ll repeat myself from an earlier post. You must have missed it.

To reach a worst possible conclusion w/o even entertaining that there could be an alternative is not fair. We don’t assume that a person w/ too many earings is necessarily a Satanist.

A funeral service grounded in the Masonic rite and a gay wedding are equally farcical to a Catholic. If one were to assume that the Priest attending a gay wedding or a masonic funeral rite of a relative were endorsing either “rite” solely on the basis of attendance (or thinking they were there for the food), they would be making a simpleton assumption. Prior to inferring a grievous act or motive, one is called to examine if there is a non-grievoous alternative. In both cases, one doesn’t have to be a genious to find an alternative motive the most likely by a significantly wide margin.

Making the above assumption of endorsement in such a such situation is to me as offensive as when people think that the Priest who is good with the young of the parish is a pedophile. In fact, when one makes assumptions based on incomplete information (especially without taking any action to supplement the information), one is exposing themselves greatly to the near occurrence of sin as they are one small step from verbalizing their erroneous conclusion which is bearing false witness- a grave matter.


#34

[quote=Orionthehunter]Regarding your last point, one can go to Mass and not participate.
[/quote]

That is very true, but one seen at mass would be presumed to have participated.

Additionally, attendees of a sacramental wedding are not participants but observants. Not even the Priest is a participant in the sacrament itself but a representative of Christ. Only God and the couple are participants.

Yes, but of course I was not speaking theologically. I was intending an explicit moral approval of the ceremony by one’s physical presence.

So I guess my answer is that participating and attending are not the same thing.

A distinction without a difference? Let us not be lawyers about this. The central point in our discusion in these past few posts is that one attending a “gay” wedding would give the appearnce to the public that one approves of the act. Even if we carry a notarized letter from our priest that does not mean that the average person who sees us would think we are there in disapproval.

I appreciate your theorizing about all this and I am trying not to be captious. I am just trying to reason how it would be prudent.


#35

[quote=Orionthehunter]I’ll repeat myself from an earlier post. You must have missed it.

To reach a worst possible conclusion w/o even entertaining that there could be an alternative is not fair. We don’t assume that a person w/ too many earings is necessarily a Satanist.
[/quote]

I submit that is the ONLY conclusion one seeing you attending a homosexual wedding could come to. Its not a matter of being “fair” it is a matter of your implicitly showing support for a couple engaged in grave sin.


#36

I would approach it from Romans 14, would you going endorse their sinful behavior in their eyes?


#37

[quote=estesbob]I submit that is the ONLY conclusion one seeing you attending a homosexual wedding could come to. Its not a matter of being “fair” it is a matter of your implicitly showing support for a couple engaged in grave sin.
[/quote]

I respectfully will repeat myself again.

It is not the only conclusion. I for one would think that anyone in attendance was a friend or relative of one or both or even a friend of the parents. Frankly, that would be the last conclusion I’d make unless I had other direct evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore, and I repeat, I think it is grievous to assume the worst conclusion (endorsement as it is a sin) when there other plausible reasons.

If you can only see one conclusion, that is not my problem and I refuse to be restricted by it. This is the outlook that causes people to see every Priest with a child or every older man dining with a girl as a pedophile or every man dining w/ a woman not his wife as an adulterer ad infinitum.

Daniel, what a appropriate scripture. We shouldn’t judge another as we would see the situation but be open that another sees the same thing differently and no less right. In other words, while some would interpret THEIR attendance as endorsement and thus wouldn’t attend (as I’ve said many times I don’t know if I wold attend), one who feels it inappropriate to attend shouldn’t project that another person’s attendance is necessarily motivated to endorse.


#38

[quote=Orionthehunter]I respectfully will repeat myself again.

It is not the only conclusion. I for one would think that anyone in attendance was a friend or relative of one or both or even a friend of the parents. Frankly, that would be the last conclusion I’d make unless I had other direct evidence to the contrary

.

Furthermore, and I repeat, I think it is grievous to assume the worst conclusion (endorsement as it is a sin) when there other plausible reasons.
Taken in the public impression realm you contradict yourself here.

If you can only see one conclusion, that is not my problem and I refuse to be restricted by it.

Are you forgetting your CCC citation regarding prudence?

This is the outlook that causes people to see every Priest with a child or every older man dining with a girl as a pedophile or every man dining w/ a woman not his wife as an adulterer ad infinitum.

This is not a valid comparison to the specific situation of this thread.
[/quote]


#39

[quote=Orionthehunter]This is the outlook that causes people to see every Priest with a child or every older man dining with a girl as a pedophile or every man dining w/ a woman not his wife as an adulterer ad infinitum.

[/quote]

No, I am sorry but this is a very flawed analogy. No reasonable person would assume two people dining are plotting a nuclear attack, or having an illcit relationship just because they are seen in a cafeteria.

Attending an event that has as its specific reason for existing the public display of a union is vastly different. People dine to consume food, talk, etc. People go to wedding ceremonies to celebrate a new union. It is very unreasonable to assume a wedding attendee rejects the union or finds the union gravely immoral.


#40

Setter is correct in that there is a contradiction in what I posted because of not fully typing what I was thinking. Sorry. The post should have been as follows:

It is not the only conclusion. I for one would think that anyone in attendance was a friend or relative of one or both or even a friend of the parents. Frankly, thinking their attendence was an endorsement of sin would be the last conclusion I’d make unless I had other direct evidence to the contrary (ie I knew them to be a supporter of gay rights).

Furthermore, and I repeat, I think it is grievous to assume the worst conclusion (endorsement as it is a sin) when there other plausible and more likely reasons (being related to one of the parties or a friend) .

Just to clarify in case I’m still being unclear. The overwhelming majority of people attend a funeral to provide support for the deceased (Catholics have an additional motive to pray for the soul of the deceased) and not to endorse the religion of the deceased or its service. The overwhelming majority of people attend a wedding to express their love and affection for a member of their family or friend and not to endorse their choice for a spouse or endorse the religion or service itself (Go back to my analogy of a divorced Catholic getting married to a divorced Protestant in a Protestant church without benefit of an annulment). Probably half the weddings I’ve attended, I met one of the spouses at the wedding and our only contact is in the recieving line and again during the “dollar dance” (surely not enough information to endorse the choice).

Along the same lines, I don’t know of a single time where my attendance at a wedding was interpreted by my friend or relative to be an endorsement of the person’s choice or warranting that the marriage is valid or worthy. My friend or relative fully understood that my attendance was a sign of affection for them and nothing more. Frankly, I find it goofy to think that the other attendees first inclination is to think more than this.

I’m starting get concerned that everyone at the weddings I attend might now think my attendance is an endorsement. I guess if that is to be the weight other attendees are going to put on my attendance, I better do more due diligence and require I be their pre-marriage sponsor or I won’t come.

Seriously, if my friend was expecting and/or needed an endorsement of his choice, I’d consider him in need of something something stronger than a conk on the head.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.