Attending Get-Together for Homosexual Couple

  • Thread starter Thread starter RunMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Eddie18 said:
If that same neighbor were a gay man, I would have to assess the situation first. If the man is overly effeminate, with an over exaggerated lisp, really flaunting his lifestyle, then there is no way I’m inviting him over for a picnic for fear of scandal. However, if the man is clean-cut and doesn’t flaunt his lifestyle, and doesn’t speak of it, then the risk of scandal is low and I may decide to have him over

Each case must be weighed. Looking at the quotes are ready posted on scandal, this is not a situation to be taken lightly.
Click to expand...
A) to be effeminate and to be gay are not the same thing. I had a friend who was most certainly not gay who was very upset about how often he set off what people call the “gaydar.”

As for the lisp, people have those without looking to develop them, either. The lisp should not be automatically connected with homosexuality. There are simply too many people with a lisp who are not gay and vice versa.


B) I’m not sure what you think being “clean cut” has to do with “flaunting his lifestyle.” Imagine a very effeminate man who has an attraction for his own sex. Of course he cannot act on it, but is he bound to conceal everything that might give the impression that he is homosexual? No, he doesn’t. Being homosexual is not a scandalous condition. Being a promiscuous person who loudly approves of sexual relationships outside of true marriage is the problem.

C) Likewise, someone who has a meth addiction will very often do damage to their body that is not erased when they become clean and sober. It is the sobriety that is important, though, not the look of being a drug addict or the reputation of being a drug addict.

When someone is trying to live a clean and sober life, they need acceptance and support in order to not fall back into their old life. They need friends who are adamantly clean and sober but who don’t shun them for their past mistakes or worry so much about guilt by association that they can’t offer any support.
 
Last edited:
I would go as a friend. I don’t think you need to make a statement and showing up in friendship is an example of Christian love. I friend of mine has a daughter who is gay. She and her partner got married and my friend didn’t go, but she did have dinner with them later in a restaurant.
 
This thread is so odd to me.

I would say 30% of my friends are homosexual or transgender. We have had open and honest discussions. They know what I believe about their actions but recognize I love them despite their actions. They feel the same about me.

They have attended my confirmation, marriage and other religious ceremonies despite them not believing in those things. They did so out of love for me and to show their support for ME.

I have attended their wedding celebrations, birthday parties and etc out of love for them.

This has opened me up to meeting more people in these lifestyles and has allowed me to minister to them. Some are open and receptive and now come to me for more questions, others decided they were offended and no longer speak to me.

Is scandal a serious issue?

Yes. But isn’t it a bigger scandal to lead people to believe the Church openly and vocally hates them?
 
It’s not a matter of shunning anyone or of avoiding gays. In this case it’s just a question of whether or not to attend an event specifically celebrating a same sex union.

One thing seems certain. To the extent that normal devout Joe Catholics elect to attend events celebrating same sex unions, to the same extent it has the effect of ‘normalizing’ them, with the implication that it’s nothing but another lifestyle choice of no great concern to our Catholic faith. And the continuing sexual devolution is thereby approved as okay by Catholics.
 
Unless these men have lived on a desert island since birth, they know what the Catholic Church teaches about same sex marriage. No need to re-iterate, the admonishment has been done many times from even secular media.

As we cannot know the souls of these men, for them this may be only a venial sin, they may nave no culpability.

We do not have responsibility to reprimand or admonish people 70 times 7. We do have the responsibility to be kind, to avoid all forms of unjust discrimination.
 
TheLittleLady said:
Unless these men have lived on a desert island since birth, they know what the Catholic Church teaches about same sex marriage. No need to re-iterate, the admonishment has been done many times from even secular media.

As we cannot know the souls of these men, for them this may be only a venial sin, they may nave no culpability.

We do not have responsibility to reprimand or admonish people 70 times 7. We do have the responsibility to be kind, to avoid all forms of unjust discrimination.
Click to expand...
I get you, and to an extent I agree with you. The father may not need to have this conversation with his hosts, since he may have had this conversation with them already in the past.
Just to clarify: In the context, I was describing a friend presenting the question of whether or not his hosts want him at their wedding or not. He is not telling them what the Church teaches. He is telling them what his own principles still are and asking whether the hosts want his principles at their reception or not, since he is not willing to show up without them. That is all I meant. Yes, there are a lot of ways that communication might go, depending on what the actual context of the relationship is.
 
Last edited:
This is exactly how I would be compelled by church teaching to act. We are supposed to treat everyone with respect and love. We don’t need to shun anyone.
 
And, when you have a relationship, these conversations happen organically so there is not a GOTCHA. Your friend has seen you fast from meat on Friday, pray over every meal, they know your Faith and that is how mutual respect grows.
 
Eddie18 said:
I read in a Catholic book somewhere (I forget where at the moment) that people often fall into the sin of sodomy because they spend too much time in idleness.
Click to expand...
This is like saying alcohol is a gateway drug. I’ve been quite idle in my day due to circumstance and I assure you - other women have never held an attraction for me even at my most bored.

Not everything you read is accurate. I would say this isn’t. Just because you’re idle doesn’t mean you’re headed down that path, just like drinking doesn’t mean you’re going to smoke crack.
Eddie18 said:
But if someone is a public sinner (or otherwise widely known to be a sinner), then as a Catholic I don’t want to be seen with them for fear that someone might believe I approve, or commit the same sins.
Click to expand...
Uhm, all of us are known to be sinners.

We’re headed back for our Amish cave at this rate.
 
Last edited:
I was referring to your statements not the cut and paste from the catechism.
I am not saying there is anything wrong with your statements.
 
Last edited:
JanetF said:
This is exactly how I would be compelled by church teaching to act. We are supposed to treat everyone with respect and love. We don’t need to shun anyone.
Click to expand...
We do need to shun certain gatherings, though, and we do need to live the faith openly enough that there is some chanced we might be shunned for believing it.

What is the old quip, LOL? If people were being imprisoned for living the faith instead of just showing up for Mass on Sundays, would there be enough evidence to convict you? Seriously, though, if we have to act ashamed of the faith in order to not be shunned, then we have to risk being shunned. Just because someone says we are being shunned because their feeling are hurt that doesn’t change things, if the truth is that their feelings are hurt because we chose to openly live the faith even when it might upset them.

Our Lord ate with sinners and taught it was a sin for a sinner to sit in judgment of other sinners. He didn’t stop teaching what was and was not a sin, nor did he tell the Apostles to do so. As for those who are baptized, he must have taught there is a difference between the closeness of relationship between the baptized and everyone else, since he said of someone who wouldn’t amend offensive behavior: “If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.” (Matt 18:17b)
 
Last edited:
Why is everyone talking about shunning? It seems to be coming from a new kind of holier-than-thou mentality.
 
Last edited:
Certain sins have more gravity and a lax attitude usually leads to a normalization of it.
 
Last edited:
More convinced of what? I didn’t compare anything.
 
Last edited:
I think ratio1 was trying to explain how going to a Nazi party would seem like you support them or approve of them. Or maybe it shows that people are not consistent in which sinners they like to be with.
 
Last edited:
It was only a matter of time since the Nazi analogy appeared on this board. The hate/hater labeling has already showed up.
 
Last edited:
My point was it was more than JUST a party. And to bring this point across I wanted to use extreme examples so people will immediately get my point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top