Dinner guests: chance to evangelize vs. scandal

[Della2014]

We live on a street with two SS couples. My college-age daughter has asked if we could invite one of them to dinner. My husband has stated that this would be scandalous and that we can be good neighbors and Christian witnesses in other ways. I am being obedient to my husband, but wonder what others think about inviting those apparently in grave sin into one’s home. How does one best spread the light of Christ to one’s neighbor, particularly those in apparent grave sin?

 

[EasterJoy]

Provided that your daughter warns her guest that your affection for your neighbors does not extend to an acceptance of inappropriate relationships or acts, of course you may have them to dinner. They are not fugitives from the law!

If they are willing to break bread with someone who believes they are committing a grave sin and will not pretend otherwise, then you may of course break bread with them. It would be disingenuous to pretend acceptance and then to spring it on them at dinner that it is not the sort of acceptance you have lead them to believe you hold for them, though. It is wrong to gain someone’s acceptance of an invitation by using false pretenses.

IOW, of her request, I would say this: “Do they know we are against sexual acts between unmarried persons, and that we do not accept marriage between persons of the same sex as even possible? If they will break bread with us, knowing that, they of course we will welcome them. Why would we not?.” If you do not know that they engage in such acts (because they do not say so or because they do not behave as lovers when with each other), then of course you do not have to pry into their backgrounds to see if they are lovers. It is OK, after all, for a man to have another man as a roommate. You only have to correct them if they make comments such that saying nothing would constitute tacit approval, just as you would if a heterosexual made comments of that sort.

 

[phillylawyer]

Provided that your daughter warns her guest that your affection for your neighbors does not extend to an acceptance of inappropriate relationships or acts, of course you may have them to dinner. They are not fugitives from the law!

If they are willing to break bread with someone who believes they are committing a grave sin and will not pretend otherwise, then you may of course break bread with them. It would be disingenuous to pretend acceptance and then to spring it on them at dinner that it is not the sort of acceptance you have lead them to believe you hold for them, though. It is wrong to gain someone’s acceptance of an invitation by using false pretenses.

IOW, of her request, I would say this: “Do they know we are against sexual acts between unmarried persons, and that we do not accept marriage between persons of the same sex as even possible? If they will break bread with us, knowing that, they of course we will welcome them. Why would we not?.”

To be honest, I don’t even know why clarifying their stance on same-sex relationships is even necessary. If they ask, of course be honest in a charitable way, but why go out of your way to point it. If you have someone over who you know is an alcoholic, should you offer a disclaimer “We don’t agree with your alcoholism, but you are welcome,” if someone is a Catholic, but doesn’t go to mass should you offer a disclaimer, if you know that they have premarital sex, should you?

My opinion is have them over and be friends with them. If they ask, be honest. If you really feel the need to offer a “disclaimer” in order to invite them over for dinner, then the more charitable thing is probably not to invite them over at all. If I were invited over for dinner and someone said, “By the way, I believe your Catholic faith is immoral, and sexist, and bigotted, but, as long as you know that and still want to come, let’s have dinner together!” I would find it just plain rude and lacking in social graces. Just my two cents.

 

[Della]

The best thing you can do is just be a good neighbor. If you regularly invite new neighbors to dinner, then no one would think anything of it. But if you were to invite them solely because they are SS that would raise questions and may cause unintended scandal.

Our new neighbors are a young couple living together before marriage (they’re planning a summer wedding). This is such a common arrangement now days that no one thinks anything of it, sad to say. We brought them some home grown tomatoes, and say hi across our border, but that’s about it. I haven’t thought to invite them to dinner mainly because we’re rather reclusive (just natural for us) and our house is quite tiny. But, we’ll go to their house for BBQs this coming summer if they invite us. We can’t be any kind of witness if we aren’t willing to be friendly. After all, we are all sinners no matter who we are.

 

[EasterJoy]

To be honest, I don’t even know why clarifying their stance on same-sex relationships is even necessary. If they ask, of course be honest in a charitable way, but why go out of your way to point it. If you have someone over who you know is an alcoholic, should you offer a disclaimer “We don’t agree with your alcoholism, but you are welcome,” if someone is a Catholic, but doesn’t go to mass should you offer a disclaimer, if you know that they have premarital sex, should you?

My opinion is have them over and be friends with them. If they ask, be honest. If you really feel the need to offer a “disclaimer” in order to invite them over for dinner, then the more charitable thing is probably not to invite them over at all. If I were invited over for dinner and someone said, “By the way, I believe your Catholic faith is immoral, and sexist, and bigotted, but, as long as you know that and still want to come, let’s have dinner together!” I would find it just plain rude and lacking in social graces. Just my two cents.

Actually, there* are *people who believe the Catholic faith is immoral, sexist, and bigoted, and if I were to go to their house for dinner, I’d appreciate knowing what I was getting into in advance. I certainly wouldn’t want them springing that on me after I told them where I do all my volunteer work!

If the daughter knows these neighbors well and knows they are lovers (which she might) or knows they have strong political opinions and a dislike of people who hold opposing opinions, she would do well to give them a heads-up before asking them to dinner at the table of people they are not going to like having a meal with. If she only knows that they are two guys who own a house together, then no, it would not do to poll them about their views on homosexuality. (She might say, “I’ll give you a heads up: my parents are traditional Catholics when it comes to sexual matters. That may not make any difference to you, but on the other hand some people our age would like a heads-up on that kind of thing when it comes to dinner conversation.”)

If they are willing to be friends with people who believe their morals are totally misguided, then of course it is OK to be friends with them, as well. It is not as if it is impossible for two people to have a friendship when each thinks the other is morally backward.

 

[kozlosap]

What a sad way to live. One of the partners in either of the gay couples could end up being a dear friend of yours if given the opportunity.

 

[EasterJoy]

What a sad way to live. One of the partners in either of the gay couples could end up being a dear friend of yours if given the opportunity.

Not just that, but how can you help someone in their need if you stand off from them? If they are willing to take you as you are, then why not be on terms of mutual forbearance with your literal neighbors? They ought to know to call on you, if they need you, because they know you want to be kind to them even if you don’t agree with everything they do.

Surely, we’d feel the same about our neighbors, if we lived somewhere that others thought our ways were wrong.

 

[Mr_Clean]

Jesus broke bread with the lower forms of mankind-even the one who handed him over to be killed.

 

[MarySB]

+1

I was ready to post the same gist, but see Mr. Clean already did it!

 

[EasterJoy]

Jesus broke bread with the lower forms of mankind-even the one who handed him over to be killed.

“Lower forms of mankind”? That’s probably not the way your dinner companions would like to hear you describe your choice to deign to share a meal with them.

Seriously, though, you are right. Our Lord did not, however, refrain from correcting the morals of either his hosts or his dinner companions, even when he knew very well that it would only increase their desire to kill him. That does not mean we have to presume to be teachers every time we sit down with someone for dinner or that we have to provoke people or confront them. It does mean we cannot give tacit approval to falsehoods that come up in the conversation. If someone makes a comment that is simply untrue, we do have to say that is it untrue, regardless of unpleasant social repercussions.

When it comes to dinner companions who are going to talk about their sex lives, it is not unkind to give them fair warning about that, as people in our times are accustomed to getting tacit approval of everything they do in that area. People may expect that someone could chide them if they brag about cheating on their taxes, but they don’t expect that when it comes to sex.

 

[Mr_Clean]

All of us, with the exception of Christ, are “lower forms” or more accurately sinners. You are right though-not the best to say it that way. We are to remove the plank from our own eye. We should not shun other sinners-we are commanded to love even our enemies. Doesn’t mean we should roll over and play dead either.

 

[DarkLight]

“Lower forms of mankind”? That’s probably not the way your dinner companions would like to hear you describe your choice to deign to share a meal with them.

Seriously, though, you are right. Our Lord did not, however, refrain from correcting the morals of either his hosts or his dinner companions, even when he knew very well that it would only increase their desire to kill him. That does not mean we have to presume to be teachers every time we sit down with someone for dinner or that we have to provoke people or confront them. It does mean we cannot give tacit approval to falsehoods that come up in the conversation. If someone makes a comment that is simply untrue, we do have to say that is it untrue, regardless of unpleasant social repercussions.

When it comes to dinner companions who are going to talk about their sex lives, it is not unkind to give them fair warning about that, as people in our times are accustomed to getting tacit approval of everything they do in that area. People may expect that someone could chide them if they brag about cheating on their taxes, but they don’t expect that when it comes to sex.

Still, the majority of those we see him correcting are the pharisees. I tend to think that addressing homosexuality directly, in such situations, is the wrong approach. Not out of cowardice, but because it is in the wrong order. Few will understand such a teaching in isolation. We cannot expect those outside the church, those likely quite unfamiliar with her teachings, to understand and live in accordance with her rules. It may be the case that the natural law should be clear, but that is not the case to most men in this day and age.

Do not hide, but do not make such things the center.

 

[doglover2]

I tihnk there’s nothing wrong with being friends with them, all of us are sinners (I’m not convinced that homosexuality is a sin but assuming it is for the sake of this thread) so you can be friends with them, they are people.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I tihnk there’s nothing wrong with being friends with them, all of us are sinners (I’m not convinced that homosexuality is a sin but assuming it is for the sake of this thread) so you can be friends with them, they are people.

Homosexuality is not a sin. Sodomy is.

There is nothing wrong with befriending them, although I wouldn’t treat them like a “couple” that could support them in their sins, which we never want to do. Show them the love of Christ and the joy of being His disciple. I wouldn’t avoid talking about my religion, but I probably wouldn’t discuss the immorality of what they are doing directly. You’ll have to befriend them before doing that.

And pray for them.

 

[FrenzyJen]

Scandal means causing someone else to sin. I don’t see where you would be causing sin by feeding people.

 

[PietroPaolo]

Scandal means causing someone else to sin. I don’t see where you would be causing sin by feeding people.

The potential scandal would be if other neighbors thought he was okay with the gay lifestyle because of the invitation. Possible, but I think the chance for real scandal is small.

 

[EasterJoy]

Still, the majority of those we see him correcting are the pharisees. I tend to think that addressing homosexuality directly, in such situations, is the wrong approach. Not out of cowardice, but because it is in the wrong order. Few will understand such a teaching in isolation. We cannot expect those outside the church, those likely quite unfamiliar with her teachings, to understand and live in accordance with her rules. It may be the case that the natural law should be clear, but that is not the case to most men in this day and age.

Do not hide, but do not make such things the center.

Let’s just say that there is no reason to believe Our Lord would have said nothing if he had been a dinner guest at Herod’s place. As far as “this day and age” goes, it isn’t worse than it was in ancient Rome.

I do not think there is anyone who is unfamiliar with the Church teaching with regards to the morality of homosexual acts. There certainly isn’t anyone who has never heard that it is against nature for a man to lie with another man as if with a woman. They may have heard it related to them by scoffers who don’t believe it, they may think only Cro Magnons believe it, but honestly, young men around the world get this one without being told.

My point is not to grab them by the collar about this topic. My point is that if your morals are traditional in general, it does not hurt to give people a bit of a heads up about it. If you seem normal, you might catch them by surprise.

I tihnk there’s nothing wrong with being friends with them, all of us are sinners (I’m not convinced that homosexuality is a sin but assuming it is for the sake of this thread) so you can be friends with them, they are people.

Homosexuality as an orientation is not a sin. It is not a sexual orientation that can be the basis for a marriage, however, and it is not an orientation that has a moral “genital expression.”

 

[EasterJoy]

Back to the original question, one has to ask whether or not the parents ever have any of their other neighbors for dinner, whether the guest in question is a friend of the daughter’s, and so on.

If your next door neighbor dressed like one of the Hell’s Angels, that doesn’t mean he’s ever caused anyone a bit of trouble. Black leather and tattoos do not a sinner make. OTOH, there isn’t a reason to single out the motorcycle guy with studs through his eyebrows for a dinner guest either ahead of or behind some other guy living across the street who also works at his accounting firm and never wears anything but a navy blue polo with khaki pants. You ought to be just as nice to one as to the other, and you ought to have the same suspicions at callers coming at all hours of the day and night regardless of which of them is getting them.

It is a good idea for neighbors to get to know each other. You like to know who to call if there is bad weather while you or they are out of town need someone to check to make sure there are no broken pipes, who might be willing to loan a stick of butter or a cup of sugar in a pinch, and so on. With this kind of relationship, you’re going to be friendly and helpful with “the world”. That’s OK. The conversation over the back fence may never get into anything very personal. That is OK, too.

My point is that the daughter is doing the inviting, and it is OK for her to ask if her guest has any trouble with people on the conservative end of the spectrum, because some people are intensely uncomfortable with people they find have political differences with them. The prospective guest may never have met the parents, and so when extending an invitation to the home of a complete stranger, it doesn’t hurt to give the person a rough idea of who’s inviting him.

 

[Della2014]

Thank you for your thoughtful replies.

Some thoughts:
Scandal can be the appearance of sin, as well, which implies tacit acceptance of the behavior. We’re all of us sinners, but if we are truly vested in getting our souls to heaven, and those of others, at some point you can’t just ignore the sin.

Jesus did indeed sit down with the outcasts of his time. It seems to me he also exhorted them to change. “Go and sin no more” “Your sins are forgiven” “According to your faith, let it be done unto you” “Not everyone can accept this teaching” “Go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven” And he overturned the money changer tables. OK, so not all of these quotes involve sinners, but you get the point. Jesus does not appear to have sat down with folks idly. He calls them out for their sins. He loved the sinner, but hated the sin. He wasn’t always “tactful” when calling a sin a sin. What did Jesus do when they did not let go of their sin?

And what does it mean to be a neighbor? Not everyone on our street is a friend, but we would help any one of them in need. I hope they know that by our actions. We’ve pet sat, house sat, removed trees, put down injured animals, run errands, given rides to airport and hospital, shoveled snow, etc. for/to most of them. We’ve certainly talked to them all as we meet on the street and at neighborhood functions.

Well, if prayer is the soul of the apostolate, we clearly need to be praying for our neighbors.

 

[Della]

Thank you for your thoughtful replies.

Some thoughts:
Scandal can be the appearance of sin, as well, which implies tacit acceptance of the behavior. We’re all of us sinners, but if we are truly vested in getting our souls to heaven, and those of others, at some point you can’t just ignore the sin.

Jesus did indeed sit down with the outcasts of his time. It seems to me he also exhorted them to change. “Go and sin no more” “Your sins are forgiven” “According to your faith, let it be done unto you” “Not everyone can accept this teaching” “Go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven” And he overturned the money changer tables. OK, so not all of these quotes involve sinners, but you get the point. Jesus does not appear to have sat down with folks idly. He calls them out for their sins. He loved the sinner, but hated the sin. He wasn’t always “tactful” when calling a sin a sin. What did Jesus do when they did not let go of their sin?

And what does it mean to be a neighbor? Not everyone on our street is a friend, but we would help any one of them in need. I hope they know that by our actions. We’ve pet sat, house sat, removed trees, put down injured animals, run errands, given rides to airport and hospital, shoveled snow, etc. for/to most of them. We’ve certainly talked to them all as we meet on the street and at neighborhood functions.

Well, if prayer is the soul of the apostolate, we clearly need to be praying for our neighbors.

I’d say then that if you are not in the habit of inviting neighbors to dinner, new or established, then going out of your way to invite an SS couple would be noticed and talked about. By doing so most would get the impression that you approve of their SS lifestyle. And you don’t want to invite people to your house as guests for the sole purpose of “correcting” them, either. It’s self-defeating and a poor way to treat any guest, IMHO–which I’m sure you agree. It’s best to let these people go about their own business but be friendly if you do meet them in a social situation, again I’m sure you agree. I’m merely stating these “obvious to us” things for the sake of our lurkers and seekers.