Living in what is a predominantly non-Catholic culture, one of the most common questions that faithful Catholics are confronted with is whether they should attend a non-Catholic wedding or not. One can certainly appreciate the moral difficulty of such a decision especially when there is a question as to the validity of the marriage and the chance that such a decision could permanently alter their relationship with the bride and bridegroom. Complicating the issue is that the Church has not spoken definitively but instead has left the Faithful to exercise their own prudence in coming to a decision. Prudence requires knowledge of the principles involved so it is instructive to examine the principles involved.
The Scandal to Evangelization Ratio
For most people there is a certain moral calculus that comes into play. They attempt to discern what might be called “a scandal to evangelization ratio”. They may intuit that their attendance at the wedding has the opportunity to create scandal but attempt to balance that with the opportunity to show them the love of God (i.e. evangelize). This type of calculation however is fraught with problems.
First, it represents an equivocation of the theological understanding of scandal with the worldly version of it. Scandal in the worldly sense means some behavior that causes public outrage. Scandal in the theological sense is much broader than this and can occur even when there is no “public outrage”. St. Thomas says that scandal really has two dimensions to it—what he calls active and passive scandal. Active scandal is when
a “man either intends, by his evil word or deed, to lead another man into sin, or, if he does not so intend, when his deed is of such a nature as to lead another into sin… something less rightly done or said, that occasions another’s spiritual downfall ” Passive scandal on the other hand, is the reception of “another man’s word or deed actions such that it disposes him to spiritual downfall” (ST II-II, q.43).
For the sake of the discussion at hand, the focus is on active scandal. Before we set aside passive scandal though a further distinction needs to be made. A man may be guilty of active scandal even if the person who witnesses the word or deed is not actually led into sin. This is why St. Thomas calls it a “deed of such a nature as to lead another into sin.” It is the type of the action and not its consequences that determine whether someone has committed a sin of active scandal. A scandalous action may still be scandalous even if there is no “public outrage.” The reason why this matters is that even if no one else knows about it (except the bride and groom of course), because a wedding is a public act it would still be the type of act that causes scandal and thus a scandalous act.
Returning to our scandal/evangelization calculator we see why this approach would not work. Negative precepts like “thou shall not commit active scandal” are binding at all times. Positive precepts like “preach the Gospel” are still an obligation, but their fulfilment depend on the circumstances. Setting aside the inherent contradiction that we could somehow preach the Gospel while at the same time sinning personally, there still would be no proportionality between the two. Avoiding sin is one of the circumstances in which the positive precept of evangelization is set aside. Even if we label this quantitative tradeoff as “discernment” it is still not possible. Nor, as an aside, could we appeal to the principle of double effect because of the same lack of proportionality.
St. John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio warned about confusing the “law of gradualness,” that is the gradual way in which the ethos of the Gospel takes hold in a man’s heart, with the “gradualness of the law.” There are not different degrees or forms of God’s law that apply for different individuals in different situations. But in an effort to be “pastoral” or “charitable” people will try to lighten the load of the law by issuing personal abrogations instead of working with the person openly so that they may make their life conform with the life-giving ethos of the Gospel. Sometimes the most loving and just thing to do is to tell a person the truth and then to continue working with them (even if virtually through prayer) to help them conform their lives with that truth. You might not see immediate conformity, but you must always (hopefully gently) spur them on to living out the truth. Otherwise you rob the Cross of its power by trying to make it easier on them. This might also require some redemptive suffering on your part as you are scorned by them because you spoke truthfully.
Other Moral Reasons
Scandal is not the only thing at play here, and, in fact, may not be the largest issue. Weddings by nature are public events precisely so that the community can witness to the union. Practically speaking a witness is not just someone who attends a wedding, but someone who consents to it. Traditionally speaking this explains the tradition of asking whether anyone objects. Just as St. Paul, bywitnessing to St. Stephen’s stoning was complicit in it (c.f. Acts 7:58, 8:1),witnesses at a wedding are cooperating formally in the exchange of vows. That is, their attendance (and forever holding their peace) implies consent. Based upon everything you know about the bride and groom, you will that they should be married. To not align your will with the spouses and still attend the wedding would be a lie. This goes for any other moral “short-cuts”like only going to the reception, not going and sending a gift, or even saying “congratulations.” All of these, using the language of the body, tell the couple and everyone else that the marriage as something to be celebrated is a good thing.
All that having been said, can we come up with a rule by which we can operate? I think a general rule of thumb would be that it is morally permissible to attend a wedding in which there is a reasonable presumption of validity. This can include marriages of Catholics, so-called mixed marriages, marriages between non-Catholic Christians, and non-Christians. The first two are governed by Canon Law and relatively easy to discern(canon 11-08-1133). It is not like you have to form your own pre-Cana Tribunal to determine whether the wedding will be valid, but that you have good reason to believe that it is. A wedding involving, for example, a couple who were previously married to other people, would be a clear-cut example of one that we would have to avoid.
What About Gay Weddings?
We have a great deal of freedom to exercise good judgment with only a few obvious exceptions. There is one other exception that bears some closer examination and that is same-sex weddings. All that we have said so far including scandal and formal cooperation would disqualify a Catholic from attending. But those are not the only reasons. Same-sex marriages are an intrinsic evil because they can never be ordered to the good, regardless of the intention or circumstances. To witness and explicitly or implicitly imply consent to such a union is itself an evil.
One might question the designation of it as an intrinsic evil, but in truth it attempts to “solemnize” a sacrilege. From the beginning, marriage was meant to be a sacred union that reveals Christ’s nuptial relationship with the Church (c.f. Ephesians 5:21-33). Even non-Sacramental marriages bear this mark and in this way marriage as a sign is considered to be the “primordial sacrament” (c.f. JPII Theology of the Body, 06 October 1982). Same-sex marriage is a sacrilege because it attempts to falsify the sign. Therefore a Catholic knowing this would participate in the sacrilege by attending a gay wedding.
Before closing it is worth revisiting something said above about having the hard discussion. It can be extremely difficult to disappoint other people, especially people you love. There is a real risk of damaging relationships. That is why it is important keep an eternal perspective on these types of things. When we generously strive to avoid disappointing God first, He always outdoes us in generosity by blessing both us and the other people involved. While it may strain the relationship here, it paves the way for the only real relationship in the Communion of Saints. Bearing this in mind, can help to ease some of the difficulty here and now.