Introduction:

Thank you to everyone who shared their thoughts on our newest moral dilemma. After outlining the original dilemma and then adding a wrinkle to it later, we are now ready for an analysis of the dilemma from an expert in moral theology and ethics.

The Final Analysis

Dysfunctional families abound! Some suggest that every family is dysfunctional to some degree. No one comes from a perfectly functional family. Communication within a family is rarely simple and straightforward. We can only try to do the best we can to be honest, loving, and to communicate well with our parents and siblings.

The reason I raise the “dysfunctional” issue is that Blaise seems awfully high-handed or self-righteous about his brother’s indiscretions. Also the term “angry” is used several times to describe Blaise’s feelings. He opts to meet his brother at the very table at which his brother was kissing a male beau—seeking “scene-of-the-crime” guilt? And the word “confront” is used several times too. If by “confront” we simply mean “face the issue honestly and directly,” then it’s not a loaded term. However, in context, it seems as if “confront” may encompass Blaise’s anger, precise & monotone voice, and abruptness.

Whether Blaise is more upset because his brother Roger is flirting with a fellow male (i.e. gay context) or whether he is simply very upset that Roger is not being faithful to his fiancé (regardless of the gay/straight question), in either case Blaise’s anger and uptightness don’t help his efforts to communicate genuine care and concern. He seems more wrathful than loving, which bespeaks some family-of-origin “dysfunction.”

Put more simply, I think Blaise’s “how” is seriously getting in the way of the rightful “what” that he is trying to communicate.

The Responders

Kudos to those responders who caught this right away and sought to dial-down the anger and ratchet up the empathy/understanding level:

“Blaise should get the facts from Roger first.”

“Blaise should confront his brother, but only after Roger leaves the café. Roger is the one who needs to make some difficult decisions, and

whatever his decision is, Blaise needs to respect that—after they’ve had some sort of discussion.”

“Not ‘confront,’ so much as check it out. Remain calm.”

Following the addition of “the wrinkle,” I think one of the best responses was:

“Blaise needs to continue to stay connected to his brother. He should, however, be honest about his own feelings involved in the relationships: concern and care for Roger, for Kate, and for his own relationship with Roger. Clearly they’ve not been communicating effectively up to this point. Blaise too should probably talk to a good counselor…”

I wholeheartedly agree with the 69% who suggested that initially “Blaise should leave the café and call [or get together with] his brother later to talk.” Regarding the later, after-the-wrinkle options, I am less inclined toward the number one answer about calling Kate to see if they indeed have the “open romance policy” that Roger describes. I don’t see it as little brother’s task to play truant officer or purity police. I tilt toward the second most-preferred response, “Tell Roger he needs to tell Kate what’s going on.” It seems to me most of the additional comments unpack one of these two approaches.

Some Moral Analysis of Roger’s Double Romance

We simply don’t have all the facts. I don’t have enough of the story and context to make a clean and clear moral judgment, at least not about Roger’s sexual orientation. Is he heterosexual or bisexual or homosexual? If the former, why engage in romantic activity with another male? If the latter, is he marrying solely to “appear” straight or even to “try to change” his orientation? Or, more likely, he is somewhere in the bi-sexual range, sexually drawn to people of both genders. What I would say in terms of Kate, the wedding, and Roger’s integrity would depend on more of this data.

Still, regardless of Roger’s orientation, a person committed to be married —by all Judeo-Christian and traditional societal mores—has made a commitment to sexual fidelity to one’s soon-to-be spouse. Fornication prior or extra-marital affairs after the vows would seem to be dishonest, counterproductive, and a recipe for relational trouble. For all these reasons the Church calls it “sinful.” A less churchy term would be “immoral.” Fidelity, sexually and relationally, seems to me to be the underlying moral question, regardless of Roger’s sexual attractions and preferences.

Recommending and Respecting

Hearing that Kate may be aware of Roger’s tendency to “play around” does color my pastoral response a bit, but not my overall moral concern. If she condones or even tolerates his roving eye and infidelities, then they indeed are off to a bad start. This would not be a truly sacramental marriage. It could fairly easily be annulled on the grounds that “monogamy” and “fidelity” were not intended from the outset. I don’t think that is good for Roger or for Kate. Integrity, fidelity, commitment, monogamy, mutual fulfillment, and responsibility are the benchmarks of a healthy and lasting marriage.

However, if in fact Roger and Kate have mutually subscribed to this “open marriage” concept—and it is a matter for their discussion and moral discernment, not Blaise’s coercion—then I would recommend respecting, even while disagreeing with them. I can counsel, express my own moral values, encourage, and even prophetically (but gently) preach to them. But, in the end, it is their lives, their marriage, and their interpretation of what faithfulness and commitment mean.

It isn’t Blaise’s calling to tell the whole family, to cause a public ruckus, or to boycott the whole thing. If he can enable Roger and Kate to be honest with each other, and if he can add his own fraternal words of advice to Roger (or to Roger & Kate together), then I think it is his place to back off and to love his brother, come what may. Love does not always mean “approval.” However, kicking dust off one’s sandals or disowning someone would seem far more dysfunctional than compassionate. Care, gentle confrontation, and compassion seem to be called for.