Need some advice regarding interaction with homosexual neighbors

[proudnifi]

I don’t think we should necessarily avoid all interaction with homosexuals. Every situation is different.

When I was a fairly young child (1st - 3rd grades) one of my best friends was a girl whose mother had a female roommate. I didn’t know any different until I had an odd thought in high school and asked my mom about it - yep, they were lesbians. But to the best of my knowledge, none of us kids knew about it - or none of the ones I knew since it wasn’t even a topic of school yard gossip. My mom made the point that the child shouldn’t be penalized for the actions of the adults in her life. The adults in question didn’t act in any otherwise inappropriate manner - ie, never suggested they were “in love” - and were otherwise good parental figures. As far as I can tell, my parents don’t approve of homosexuality and I am still impressed by their ability to allow me to have an untainted friendship with the other little girl. Perhaps their actions also provided a good Catholic example for the women (and once she was older, the girl). I take it as a good real-world example of the goal to hate the sin, love the sinner, and to show Catholic love for others.

As I noted, it’s definitely situational - I don’t think my parents would have been as open to the idea of my visiting their home if the women had been more open about the situation.

 

[Mirdath]

The best thing to do here is to stay away from such people. Leave their evangelization to priests, psychologists, law enforcement and other professionals who have experience dealing with this sort of disorder.

Law enforcement?

 

[Other_Eric]

I don’t think we should necessarily avoid all interaction with homosexuals. Every situation is different.

When I was a fairly young child (1st - 3rd grades) one of my best friends was a girl whose mother had a female roommate. I didn’t know any different until I had an odd thought in high school and asked my mom about it - yep, they were lesbians. But to the best of my knowledge, none of us kids knew about it - or none of the ones I knew since it wasn’t even a topic of school yard gossip. My mom made the point that the child shouldn’t be penalized for the actions of the adults in her life. The adults in question didn’t act in any otherwise inappropriate manner - ie, never suggested they were “in love” - and were otherwise good parental figures. As far as I can tell, my parents don’t approve of homosexuality and I am still impressed by their ability to allow me to have an untainted friendship with the other little girl. Perhaps their actions also provided a good Catholic example for the women (and once she was older, the girl). I take it as a good real-world example of the goal to hate the sin, love the sinner, and to show Catholic love for others.

As I noted, it’s definitely situational - I don’t think my parents would have been as open to the idea of my visiting their home if the women had been more open about the situation.

If we are going to concede situational differences, one of the biggest to be gleaned from your example is that of time. Same-sex couples had multiple disincentives to being forward about the nature of their relationship in the early- to mid-eighties. Nowadays, such couples are far bolder. This new bravery is a function of the culture having trodden over many of its morals. Christians ought therefore be equally as bold in answering this new, shameless attitude.

 

[Feedmysheep]

Of course, contracepting married couples, female neighbors who have had abortions and divorced-and-remarried adults do not flaunt their sin as same-sex couples obviously do. Should such people decorate their houses with pictures of the abortion procedure they’ve had; should their dining room hutch be stocked with birth-control pills and condoms rather than fine china; or should the man have a set of hatch-marks on the front door denoting the number of women he’s divorced we may then talk of treating such people similar to the way in which we mean to treat this same-sex couple.

Then by this reasoning, unless one sees the homosexual couple engaging in sexual acts, you don’t have to shun them? If the couple acts in a celibate manner publicly, then they’re “OK”?
We’re making assumptions on what actually goes on in their bedroom, but won’t extend those same assumptions to married couples of childbearing age who have their one boy and one girl, then never get pregnant again? And I wasn’t aware that one had to reach a certain quota of divorces (hatchmarks on the front door or no) before divorce and remarriage became a sin. The “we have two children, we’re done” comments and every public outing with second spouse are actions “flaunting” their sins.

My point is that it seems that people are more willing to condone the sins of homosexuals, while turning a blind eye to the many sexual sins of heterosexuals.

 

[Other_Eric]

Then by this reasoning, unless one sees the homosexual couple engaging in sexual acts, you don’t have to shun them? If the couple acts in a celibate manner publicly, then they’re “OK”?
We’re making assumptions on what actually goes on in their bedroom, but won’t extend those same assumptions to married couples of childbearing age who have their one boy and one girl, then never get pregnant again? And I wasn’t aware that one had to reach a certain quota of divorces (hatchmarks on the front door or no) before divorce and remarriage became a sin. The “we have two children, we’re done” comments and every public outing with second spouse are actions “flaunting” their sins.

My point is that it seems that people are more willing to condone the sins of homosexuals, while turning a blind eye to the many sexual sins of heterosexuals.

My point remains. In each of the examples I’ve cited people are not necessarily witness to the sin being committed. We are not present at the civil divorce nor the remarriage ceremony, we do not look on while a woman pops a birth-control pill or a man fits himself with a condom. Even in the case of the pictures of an abortion procedure, we are only looking at something that points to the sin, not the sin itself. The point is that each of those things is not the sin itself but, like the same-sex couple referring to each other as “partner” they are making publicly manifest their own grave sin.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I do not understand the hostility exhibited to rpp’s wholly reasonable suggestion. In a same-sex couple such as the one referred to by the OP, we have two individuals who are making a public display of the fact that they either engage in or support something that is intrinsically evil. It does not do to ignore this fact simply so that one may have coffee, pastries and pleasant conversation with sinners. We are called to spread the Good News at all times, not shrink back from this obligation in cowardice because we judge it to be a breach of etiquette.

What exactly is the “public display” you claim other than people simply living their lives and acting like everyone else presumably does? I seem to remember that Jesus was often accused of having too much truck with sinners. How do you square your statement that “it does not do to ignore this fact simply so that one may have coffee, pastries, and pleasant conversation with sinners.” with Jesus’ teachings on Others?

Further, if the OP has children, than rpp’s suggestion becomes even more appropriate. This is not just because those with same-sex attraction exhibit a higher degree of predation than their heterosexual counterparts. Even in the absence of the threat of sexual abuse, the OP has a grave responsibility to the moral and spiritual development of her children. Permitting close association with a couple who obviously flaunt what the Church teaches on sexuality will introduce confusion and could possibly corrupt the children’s spiritual progress.

Again,how do you know what goes on in their home such that you can define them as “flaunt[ing] what the Church teaces on sexuality…”

The best thing to do here is to stay away from such people. Leave their evangelization to priests, psychologists, law enforcement and other professionals who have experience dealing with this sort of disorder.

Why would law enforcement have anything to do with a gay couple? Do you presume something? What would it be?

 

[puzzleannie]

Now, while I certainly have no intent of treating my new neighbors with anything other than Christian Charity… I’d like to know how to do so… WITHOUT appearing to approve of their lifestyle. We are already on a first name basis. And I fear that over-familiarity might be misinterpreted as approval of the homosexual lifestyle. But, at the same time… I certainly do not want to shun my neighbors.

.

what would be your attitude and behavior toward a man and woman moving next door who are not married, but are raising children together

to a single mother

to a single father

to an elderly couple without children

to a couple of guys who are roomates with no indication there is an other relationship

you would treat them as neighbors, probably avoid making judgments about them based on what you observe, not get into personal discussions about their sex life (just as you would not share any details of your intimate life) in short, you would not have knowledge of what goes on behind closed doors, so you would not let such knowledge or assumptions color your actions toward them. If you had reason to believe, however, any activity which would not be wholesome for your children to witness might go on in that house, you children would not be allowed to visit. That goes for the pot-smoking neighbor, the hunter who has guns at home, the kid next door whose parents let him watch MTV all day, and so forth.

if you are ever in conversation and are asked a point blank question or your opinion is solicited you will give a point blank honest answer and state your honest opinion.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Then by this reasoning, unless one sees the homosexual couple engaging in sexual acts, you don’t have to shun them? If the couple acts in a celibate manner publicly, then they’re “OK”?
We’re making assumptions on what actually goes on in their bedroom, but won’t extend those same assumptions to married couples of childbearing age who have their one boy and one girl, then never get pregnant again? And I wasn’t aware that one had to reach a certain quota of divorces (hatchmarks on the front door or no) before divorce and remarriage became a sin. The “we have two children, we’re done” comments and every public outing with second spouse are actions “flaunting” their sins.

My point is that it seems that people are more willing to condone the sins of homosexuals, while turning a blind eye to the many sexual sins of heterosexuals.

I agree. There is always, among everyone it seems a tendency to parse one’s Catholic responsibilities to those things one personally approves of and to ignore or but give lip service to those one does not agree with. I assume we all do this, to one degree or another. But when one goes to the very outside extreme of what’s permissible while mouthing the appropriate “doctrine” I think its time to pause and really self-examine what is going on.

I don’t mind that someone sincerely believes that there is a question as to how to be charitable while still being Catholic, but when the words chosen are mean and pejorative in nature and express singular disdain for a whole group of people, I guess I wonder at what’s behind such expressed anger.

Catholicism is simply better than this. We are ostensibly the leader of our brothers and sisters in Church teachings which we wish to share with the world. When objection sinks to such a level of disdain, we lose our moral leadership having turned mean and ugly. We need not sink to such a level.

 

[Dale_M]

…the same-sex couple referring to each other as “partner” they are making publicly manifest their own grave sin.

Nah, it only makes manifest that they love each other. Is the love that homosexuals feel for each other also forbidden? (This is a serious question - I don’t know.)

If we are to convince someone of their sin, we are going to get a much better reception if we are friendly with them. Extending an icy hand will only shut down communication. There is an old saying that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. I think it is relevant to this situation.

If you make clear you are a faithful Catholic they will know where you stand. My sense is that Christians are often viewed by homosexuals as narrow-minded, judgemental bigots. Its a stereotype we shouldn’t encourage by acting in an unfriendly, judgemental manner. Stand firm by your beliefs without passing judgement. Talk about your beliefs when asked - its the best way to evangelize.

 

[Other_Eric]

What exactly is the “public display” you claim other than people simply living their lives and acting like everyone else presumably does? I seem to remember that Jesus was often accused of having too much truck with sinners. How do you square your statement that “it does not do to ignore this fact simply so that one may have coffee, pastries, and pleasant conversation with sinners.” with Jesus’ teachings on Others?

Again,how do you know what goes on in their home such that you can define them as “flaunt[ing] what the Church teaces on sexuality…”

Why would law enforcement have anything to do with a gay couple? Do you presume something? What would it be?

There is a sort of false expectation on here that one cannot know that such a couple as the one the OP mentions is engaged in manifest grave sin unless they were to fornicate on their front lawn. This is nothing more than willful ignorance. A same-sex couple that present themselves as “partnered” or to have some other form of relationship that attempts to replicate marriage expressly imply that they have sexual contact with one another. Simply because one is not furnished with a schematic diagram of their illicit activity does not mean it does not take place.

It seems that if one were to meet such a couple, in this day and age, who presented themselves as a couple but who did not engage in sexual relations with each other, that this would be made clear by the couple. If it isn’t then they are explicitly guilty of causing scandal. Thus, even in the absence of sexual activity, such a couple, who would deliberately create a false impression of themselves lead, the impressionable astray and are in a state of sin roughly comparable to the one they would have been in if they *had *been having illicit relations.

 

[Other_Eric]

Nah, it only makes manifest that they love each other. Is the love that homosexuals feel for each other also forbidden? (This is a serious question - I don’t know.)

If we are to convince someone of their sin, we are going to get a much better reception if we are friendly with them. Extending an icy hand will only shut down communication. There is an old saying that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. I think it is relevant to this situation.

If you make clear you are a faithful Catholic they will know where you stand. My sense is that Christians are often viewed by homosexuals as narrow-minded, judgemental bigots. Its a stereotype we shouldn’t encourage by acting in an unfriendly, judgemental manner. Stand firm by your beliefs without passing judgement. Talk about your beliefs when asked - its the best way to evangelize.

That such a couple loves each other is highly debatable. Using another’s body for one’s own orgasm is not an act of love. Hanging around a person who lets one do this to him for years is also not demonstrative of any sort of fidelity or commitment. Thus, the love that those with same-sex attraction feel for one another is not forbidden – it doesn’t exist.

If we are going to convince this couple of their sin, we must do nothing that implies acceptance or even tolerance of the lifestyle they have chosen for themselves. Friendly greetings, shared conversations and other social events may, in the abstract, sound like a perfectly good way of communicating one’s position on sexual matters. Even stating that one is a faithful Catholic might seem to do the trick. The reality is that ready social acceptance may imply for this couple an acceptance of their sexual sin. Even stating that one is a faithful Catholic without explicitly outlining one’s opposition to sexual activity is not enough. If one has children, they most definitely need to be kept away.

If this is regarded as narrow-minded, judgmental bigotry then rejoice! Christ said that others would hate us because of Him and this is exactly the sort of situation He was talking about. If their minds have become so darkened by sin that they cannot recognize the truth of the Gospel, don’t let that compromise your own beliefs.

 

[proudnifi]

There are many situations that cause scandal - homosexuals openly living together, civilly divorced people who remarry, heterosexuals who live together without marrying, Catholics who make no secret of their lack of mass attendance. But I don’t think we’ll win any converts by making an effort to show our condemnation of such activities by not treating these people with common courtesy and as neighbors.

I would suggest we treat them as people and do our best to provide an example of correct living in our own lives. One doesn’t have to be best friends, but common greetings, polite conversation at neighborhood gatherings, and keeping an eye on their property hardly seems out of line. Being (potentially in their view) the jerk Catholic down the street doesn’t seem helpful and doesn’t show that we love the sinner.

 

[THurifer2]

Treat them the same way you would treat pedophiles. Love them but HATE their behavior.

 

[Other_Eric]

Treat them the same way you would treat pedophiles. Love them but HATE their behavior.

Yes. Like pedophiles, such people are best loved from a distance.

 

[Other_Eric]

There are many situations that cause scandal - homosexuals openly living together, civilly divorced people who remarry, heterosexuals who live together without marrying, Catholics who make no secret of their lack of mass attendance. But I don’t think we’ll win any converts by making an effort to show our condemnation of such activities by not treating these people with common courtesy and as neighbors.

I would suggest we treat them as people and do our best to provide an example of correct living in our own lives. One doesn’t have to be best friends, but common greetings, polite conversation at neighborhood gatherings, and keeping an eye on their property hardly seems out of line. Being (potentially in their view) the jerk Catholic down the street doesn’t seem helpful and doesn’t show that we love the sinner.

The faith is not like a fast-food restaurant that we need to constantly retool the message of in order to arrive at what is most marketable. Nor should we be obsequiously deferential to those who persist in an activity that is rotting their soul from the inside. Love, if it is to be the true love that Christ commands us to have for one another, must look to that grave sin and the damage it does to the sinner’s relationship with God. Every opportunity to tear such individuals from their sin must be eagerly seized lest we be judged guilty of complacency at our own judgment.

 

[blessedtoo]

There is a sort of false expectation on here that one cannot know that such a couple as the one the OP mentions is engaged in manifest grave sin unless they were to fornicate on their front lawn.

Yes, and an erroneous assertion that large numbers of homosexual couples are living “celibate and chaste” lives, unbeknownst to us.

 

[Feedmysheep]

The faith is not like a fast-food restaurant that we need to constantly retool the message of in order to arrive at what is most marketable. Nor should we be obsequiously deferential to those who persist in an activity that is rotting their soul from the inside. Love, if it is to be the true love that Christ commands us to have for one another, must look to that grave sin and the damage it does to the sinner’s relationship with God. Every opportunity to tear such individuals from their sin must be eagerly seized lest we be judged guilty of complacency at our own judgment.

sigh Yet you are “retooling” the message of the faith for immoral heterosexuals. By not shunning the contracepting couple unless their, and I quote, “hutches are stocked to the brim with birth control pills”, or they “pop one in front of you”, you are doing the same thing.

I am not saying homosexuality is acceptable. What I AM saying is that there is a certain segment on these forums that are obsessed with homosexuals to the exclusion of divorced and remarried, or contracepting couples, or any sexual sin committed by heteros.
If you’re going to take such a hard line on the treatment of sinners, then you need to take that hard line with ALL sinners- and I’m sorry, if a couple of childbearing age, who says they’re “Done” having children crosses your path, you don’t have to wait to see that b/c pill ingested any more than you have to wait to see the homosexuals in “action”. To suggest otherwise is hypocritical.

 

[Newbie2]

If you make clear you are a faithful Catholic they will know where you stand. My sense is that Christians are often viewed by homosexuals as narrow-minded, judgemental bigots. Its a stereotype we shouldn’t encourage by acting in an unfriendly, judgemental manner. Stand firm by your beliefs without passing judgement. Talk about your beliefs when asked - its the best way to evangelize.

Every opportunity to tear such individuals from their sin must be eagerly seized lest we be judged guilty of complacency at our own judgment.

And therein lies the question: How best to evangelize to a homosexual couple? Openly and boldly proclaiming the Gospel and call for a repentance to sin, or by example (of loving your neighbor) evangelize in a subtle manner?

The former may cause them to shun you as judgmental and the latter may not be sufficient. Only the Almighty knows the best way to deal with this particular situation…obviously.

:newidea: Pray for them.

 

[blessedtoo]

I am not saying homosexuality is acceptable. What I AM saying is that there is a certain segment on these forums that are obsessed with homosexuals to the exclusion of divorced and remarried, or contracepting couples, or any sexual sin committed by heteros.

There is a “certain segment” on these forums who refuse to allow any discussion of homosexuality on it’s own, without constantly dragging in the morality issues of heterosexuals, as if all these issues are equal in context, circumstance, and urgency. This “certain segment” seems determined to conclude that because some are called specifically to address the confusions regarding the morality of homosexuality, that they are “obsessed”. This “certain segment” curiously does not apply the same tactics on threads dealing with sins such as divorce, remarriage, or contraception, even though these topics have been and continue to be discussed ad nauseam.

My observation: Those who accuse “certain segments” of “being obsessed” show themselves to be equally preoccupied when they show up time after time and attempt to shift the focus off this one particular sin and onto others by suggesting that any discussion of the sinfullness of homosexuality is "“hypocritical”.

If you’re going to take such a hard line on the treatment of sinners, then you need to take that hard line with ALL sinners- and I’m sorry, if a couple of childbearing age, who says they’re “Done” having children crosses your path, you don’t have to wait to see that b/c pill ingested any more than you have to wait to see the homosexuals in “action”. To suggest otherwise is hypocritical.

In your scenario, such a “hard line” might also be required, although I doubt a small child would understand, question, or be confused by the fact that the neighbors only have one or two children. The fact is, contracepting couples, divorced and remarried couples, and even cohabitating couples DO NOT present the same visible and jarring contradiction to natural law as a homosexual couple that publicly proclaims their “partnership”.

 

[Julianna]

When my daughter was young, she sold Girl Scout cookies. Yes, she sold them to all 4 of our neighbors who are gay. She, at the time, did not know what “gay” was. She knew how her father and I felt about it and what the Church teaches. She also knows to treat people decently. In otherwords, to teach as Jesus did. To her, they are neighbors, that’s it, just like the hetero couple next door or down the block.

I guess Other Eric, rpp and blessedtoo would put up a “For Sale” sign and bury dozens of St. Joseph statues in their front yard if a homosexual couple moved in next door.

As far as birth control pills go…yeah I have heard many Catholic women who “volunteer at church”, “teach CCD”, “organize the Catholic School carnival & other fund raising events”…state openly that they are on birth control, and/or they have 2 kids and that’s it. So I guess you wouldn’t let your children play with their children, attend a school fund raising function or CCD class. Most of the times, this is told by a group of close women friends sipping ice tea on the back deck on a Saturday afternoon. While they didn’t stand in the church yard with a megaphone, it’s not rocket science that a couple who has two children and has been married 20 yrs., isn’t doing something.

Your obsession with homophobia is beyond mental. I could care less what goes on in my neighbors bedroom, unless of course one wants the same scrutiny in theirs. It works both ways.

I did love the Freudian slip of “law enforcement”. Got a chuckle out of that. Out of the closet comes the “real agenda”. Mirdath, as usual, you saw it. Maybe if we “deny” such couples “housing”, and ship them off to a desert island somewhere, we wouldn’t have worry about “making nice”.
Or better yet, we could make “our own” gated community to keep what “WE” deem unacceptable, out. History is repeating itself again…all those women who were burned at the stake or hung for witchcraft, it turned out to be molded rye seeds that made them trip out. Welcome to Salem, enjoy your stay.