Gay co-habitation

[juicekman]

Hello,

I am a landlord and I may have a lesbian couple that wants to live in one of my properties. As a faithful Catholic what should I do in this situation? Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks so much and God bless you.

 

[tiggeriffic]

Thank them monthly for their rent check. As a landlord you can not discriminate. What business is it of yours anyway.

 

[jwashu]

I agree, I don’t think you can discriminate.

I would add though that being the best landlord possible to them would also be a good thing if they know you are Catholic.

Living a life like Christ may make them consider Christian differently which could one day open the door for them

Joe

 

[kage_ar]

You can be an example of Christian love and respect for the dignity of all persons

By being a very public Catholic, and a good Catholic, you may help all of your tenants see Jesus.

 

[nobeerinheaven]

I wouldn’t aid them in their sin, but I’m not sure renting to them is aiding them (were it to aid them in that way, I would recommend not renting to them - though that does not count as *legal *advice). Maybe it is aiding them, since they would (presumably) be shacking up together in property of yours and allowing that under your roof may be scandalous to the faithful (among other things - perhaps, additionally, being complicit in the commission of gravely sinful acts?). I don’t know what I’d do, I guess I lean toward the side of precaution, which would lead me to discriminate against their rental.

I think there was an Ask an Apologist question regarding this, if you want to search for it. If you can’t find it, ask your question there (it would be better answered than here).

Edit: One way of asking the question is wondering whether landlords should inquire into the actions of their renters. Presumably it would be morally *obligatory *to prevent renters from performing legal abortions in the rented property of a Catholic. If a Catholic landlord should prevent that (by not renting to the abortionists), why would it not be morally obligatory to prevent other sins of equal gravity? Since both abortion and homosexual acts are mortal sins, then there is a prima facie case to be made against renting to homosexuals (or any other person you know would be using the rented property for the commission of mortal sin).

 

[slo2lurn]

I wouldn’t aid them in their sin, but I’m not sure renting to them is aiding them (were it to aid them in that way, I would recommend not renting to them - though that does not count as legal advice).

would u rent to a man and a woman who u know are not married?

 

[1ke]

Hello,

I am a landlord and I may have a lesbian couple that wants to live in one of my properties. As a faithful Catholic what should I do in this situation? Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks so much and God bless you.

You need to seek legal advice, depending upon what state you live in you may have different obligations and rights under the law.

You can refuse to rent, but be careful about what reasons you state verbally or in writing and not without consulting with someone who knows your state laws.

Talk to your priest regarding your moral obligation and what type, if any, of cooperation in sin this would be and what course of action you should take.

 

[nobeerinheaven]

would u rent to a man and a woman who u know are not married?

Given the reasoning I listed against renting to abortionists, I would have to say there is a good prima facie case to be made against renting to anyone that would use the property to commit mortal sin. That, of course, includes an unwed couple. However, the cohabitation of homosexuals is seemingly a more extreme case because, in addition to being (perhaps) complicit in the sins committed in the rental property, there is a worry over their renting being a scandal. Homosexual couples are far more obviously in a state of mortal sin than an unwed couple, since the couple (for all we know) just doesn’t like rings or is having them cleaned. That said, both cases seem to be instances where some moral discrimination is either permissible or obligatory.

 

[rpp]

What the Catechism has to say.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, 141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” 142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

All emphasis is mine.

Arguably, refusing to rent to the them may be considered “unjust” discrimination. A look back at my posting history will tell you that I am unutterably opposed to homosexual activity. However, the dignity of the individual persons is the questions here.

Other posters have compared this to renting to abortionists or unmarried heterosexual couples. While useful, I think the comparison to a heterosexual co-habitation falls a bit short as that is (probably) not a disordered activity. The abortionist comparison is also different as that is an opinion held by someone, rather than a “lifestyle”.

Another poster derided you by saying it was not any of your business. That is also incorrect because as a landlord, you do have a certain, albeit minimal, responsibility for both your tenants. You would not want a disruptive renter, for example.

While a difficult issue, I personally think the choice should be up to you as to whom you rent to. For example, if you only wanted to rent to people with no children, you should be able to. Likewise, if you only wanted to refuse to rent to unmarried heterosexual couples, you should be able to. Unfortunately that is no longer permitted as a result of federal court rulings.

Laws are being changed and courts are ruling resulting in special rights are being given to people who choose to engage in homosexual behavior. (Important! behavior, even sexual, is always a choice! Do not put words in to my mouth!) You may have no legal recourse if you choose not to rent to these people.

 

[nobeerinheaven]

Arguably, refusing to rent to the them may be considered “unjust” discrimination. A look back at my posting history will tell you that I am unutterably opposed to homosexual activity. However, the dignity of the individual persons is the questions here.

How would this be unjust discrimination? On what grounds is it just to morally discriminate against an abortionist tenant and not against a homosexual tenant? I’d like to hear more, since you say very little about why this counts as unjust other than the position is “arguable.” Many positions are arguable, far fewer are true.

 

[fix]

It seems a prudential matter that would depend on various factors.

I would argue that if one decides it is best not to rent a good argument can be made it is not unjust.

1. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

1. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. No. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory…

 

[rpp]

How would this be unjust discrimination? On what grounds is it just to morally discriminate against an abortionist tenant and not against a homosexual tenant? I’d like to hear more, since you say very little about why this counts as unjust other than the position is “arguable.” Many positions are arguable, far fewer are true.

I apologize if the rest of the post did not make this clear.

Determining what is “just” and “unjust” is a matter of prudential judgment. There are many circumstances where refusing to rent to these people would be unjust. Other time when it would not be.

Example of being unjust.

1. This is the only vacant apartment in a small town and these people work in that town.
2. This is a low-income / HUD apartment and the people are poor and cannot afford to live anywhere else.

Examples where it is not unjust.

1. There are a plethora of apartments that are willing to allow them rent an apartment.
2. These people are fairly well off and can afford to live in many different places.

You see, there is this thing called prudential judgment. Which is NOT to be confused with relativistic morality.

Others would argue, as some have suggested, that what people do in their own bedroom is no one’s business. I disagree with that on the grounds that the behavior that people exhibit in the bedroom is displayed in other ways publicly as well. The choice to engage in homosexual activity is gravely disordered and anything that can be done to minimize the influence on children should be taken.

As for the arguments you provided earlier, to me that seems like over-scrupulosity, perhaps even verging on Jansenism.

Thus I agree with some of your conclusions, but do not believe your reasoning is in keeping with the the section of the Catechism I quoted. After all, we are talking about renting a home to someone, not a space to conduct business (e.g. an abortion clinic or brothel).

 

[mdgspencer]

I would advise against it, particularly because your question indicates that you find their lifestyle questionable. I don’t know where you live, but if you are in a place like Canada you might want to have an initial consultation with a lawyer, unless you already know from experience how to brush them off innocuously.
I presume that most people would not rent to a burglar or a pedophile, and their behavior is just as reprehensible and these other things. If a question of whether or not their behavior is sinful underlines uncertainty about what to do, you might consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church and see what it says (which speaks very negatively about homosexual acts).

 

[mschrank]

Just rent it to someone else. Say they got in there before the gays.

Otherwise, yeah you can’t discriminate. You have no rights in this country. Welcome to the cultural and political no-mans land called being a Catholic.

 

[nobeerinheaven]

As for the arguments you provided earlier, to me that seems like over-scrupulosity, perhaps even verging on Jansenism.

Please explain, as I understand Jansenism to be a heresy regarding free will and the role of God in salvation. Scrupulosity is a tendency with which people see sin within their own consciousness, where none exists. Neither of these seem pertinent in the determination of what one should decide to do with rental property.

rpp:

Thus I agree with some of your conclusions, but do not believe your reasoning is in keeping with the the section of the Catechism I quoted. After all, we are talking about renting a home to someone, not a space to conduct business (e.g. an abortion clinic or brothel).

It’s not clear to me how the latter distinction is morally relevant (nor do I see it brought up on the CCC). Presumably, preventing one from earning a living in the way they see fit is equally fundamental a type of discrimination from preventing one from living in the property that they see fit. I see no reason, at first glance, to think discrimination against renting to businesses is morally licit while discrimination against renting for residential purposes is not. If you see a difference, it would help if you explained your reasoning.

 

[kell0618]

I think this is a wonderful opportunity to pray for someone and be a good Christian witness. Certainly, you cannot discriminate legally or morally. If you are renting the space, it indeed is something different entirely from allowing such behaviors to take place within your own home. Would you rent to heterosexuals in the same instance? Would you rent to a married couple who uses ABC? How about an alcoholic? Or someone who beats his spouse without making a sound? Some of these instances you would not know about, some you would. I don’t see how one draws the line, and I have known some married couples who I would not want to have on my property. In my opinion, same-sex cohabitation is no different than heterosexual cohabitation; they are both sinful.

Peace

 

[mschrank]

I sure as h-e-double toothpicks could morally discriminate.

 

[puzzleannie]

Thank them monthly for their rent check. As a landlord you can not discriminate. What business is it of yours anyway.

off hand I would say if two women want to rent an apartment together there is no basis to make that judgement, and to ask them outright is probably against the law. run your credit checks and give them the same application you would give any renters who are not related to each other, make each one sign the lease etc.

If you think it wise to start making a morals test for who you rent to, you will have to ask if married couples are using ABC, if prospective tenants cheat on their taxes, steal, lie or engage in other immoral activities.

 

[kell0618]

I sure as h-e-double toothpicks could morally discriminate.

Okay, fair enough. Where would you draw the line and to which sin would you say was forbidden in your rental property and which ones you could overlook?

Peace

 

[1ke]

Okay, fair enough. Where would you draw the line and to which sin would you say was forbidden in your rental property and which ones you could overlook?

Peace

Which ones? The ones that are public.

One could not morally discriminate based on **private **sins, as one would have no knowledge of them.