Need some advice regarding interaction with homosexual neighbors

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

You have made a good case for why you “think” they are, but alas that is not the point is it? I am not sure why you think that a non-engaging ss couple would “make it clear” as you say. They are causing no more scandal than any two men or women sharing a home. Many many college students group together in bizarre groupings of some men and some women, or all men and a woman or whatever. These are financial arrangements of convenience yet they surely give rise to “scandal”.

Why did you fail to address your inclusion of law enforcement in the group of those “qualified professionally” to deal with homosexuality?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

You have a narrow and personal definition of love not shared by most people. It seems something personal has happened that has engendered this deep and abiding hatred you have. “Lets one do this to him” is perhaps telling. I am sorry for whatever happened Eric, but this is not a solution.

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.

Confrontational in your face tactics like this are demonstratably ineffective and counterproductive as most anyone would assume. That you take this position does suggest that it relates more to a desire to humiliate and release pent up anger than a genuine desire to help someone see the Truth.

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.

Jesus was also the undisputed champion of the rejected, humiliated and theologically Other in his society. Indeed Eric, it is nothing more than narrow-minded judgmental bigotry. The Church does not give us license to do what we wish in terms of denigrating others by manipulating doctrine in this way. I would seriously rethink your position and why you hold it.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

Well said. What I cannot understand is that this time of “in your face” evangelism is not productive, it tends to drive people away. So when its done and defended, I begin to seriously question what the real agenda is, and it seems to be more in line with purging the world of those that we disagree with. Where exactly would it stop? I daresay once rolling, it would chop down more than half the church in its drive to cleanse the Church. I can see nothing that resembles Christ’s teaching in this methodolgy.

 

[blessedtoo]

Didn’t take long for personal attacks and insults to start flying: the last resort for those who can’t actually make an effective argument.

For the OP: You have been offered a wide range of suggestions on how best to deal with your particular situation. I trust that you will find the most compassionate and effective way to witness to your neighbors (and all the folks in your life) the beauty of God’s will.

 

[Feedmysheep]

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.

Really? Try explaining that to my small children (6 and under) who ask me why families that we know only have 1-2 children. And this is not a “you have to have X number of children to be a “real” Catholic” line- I wouldn’t presume to know why a couple has the number of children they do- other than these families in question repeatedly say that they’re “done” having children, talk about vasectomies, etc. So maybe the small children you know wouldn’t be confused or question family size. The small children I know, however, do. So, according to the previously mentioned “shun the sinners” camp, these families should be shunned.

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”.

Wrong. Small families (or couples with no children) who claim they’re done having children and have taken vocal steps to do so, “blended” families of divorced and remarried parents, unmarried women with their children and their boyfriends all provide visible witness to their sins. To take a “soft” approach to their evangelization, yet to ostracize homosexual sinners is to be the exact sort of hypocrite that critics accuse us of.

And a final observation, Blessedtoo commented that:

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.

Which makes me wonder who it was, exactly who got to rank these sins in order of “context, circumstance, and urgency”? Could someone provide me with the mortal sin ranking system so I can intelligently continue in this thread?
And if we’re going to go ahead and rank mortal sin, then why aren’t we putting chemically contracepting couples who are potentially aborting babies at the very top of the list? Don’t know.
But I stand by my opinion- if you’re going to shun your homosexual neighbors, then you need to shun all the sexual sinners you know.

 

[Feedmysheep]

You know, this thread has also got me wondering, exactly how is one to spread the good news of the Gospel to practicing homosexuals, then, if we’re to shun them? Are we to be Christ’s hands and feet by shaking our fists at the sinful neighbors and running away?

Honestly, how does evangelization take place when you don’t have a speaking relationship with the sinner?

 

[Other_Eric]

You know, this thread has also got me wondering, exactly how is one to spread the good news of the Gospel to practicing homosexuals, then, if we’re to shun them? Are we to be Christ’s hands and feet by shaking our fists at the sinful neighbors and running away?

Honestly, how does evangelization take place when you don’t have a speaking relationship with the sinner?

The attitude that we are to adopt in relation to this same-sex couple ought be exactly the same attitude we should adopt when confronted with an excommunicate. There are harsh consequences that come as a result of the sin such a couple chooses to engage in. It is the severity of these consequences that constitute the evangelization those with same-sex attraction need to be able to see for themselves how far from Grace they have fallen.

 

[freesoulhope]

I’d like to know how to do so… WITHOUT appearing to approve of their lifestyle.

First of all. If you want to clear the air of any future confusion or uncomfortable situations where one is afraid to bear wittness; Just say, “i really like being around you and i want to be your freinds; but i just want you to know that i am a Catholic”.

Unless they have been living underground since the day they were born, I’m sure they will know that Catholics believe that homosexuality is a sin; and then its up to them if they want to be your freinds. Secondly, they know what they are doing, they are not stupid; so unless they directly challenge your beliefs, it is unecessary for you to bring up their sexuality in a conversation or constantly harass them about there sexual life styles. They have probably heard it all before. Just accept that they are gay, but make it clear that you do not believe in it, and that you think it is wrong. Thirdly, live the Christian life style, so they can’t accuse you hating gay people. It will then be clear that although you reject homosexuality, you do not reject them as human-beings.
If you both then agree to be freinds, despite your beliefs, the problem about their homosexuality needn’t be brought up again, unless you feel it is personally effecting you, or they choose to challenge you. Its better to be humble; rather then in there face, since this can be mistaken for the idea that you hate them as people. This could push them even futher away from God.

Or…you could just avoid the whole situation altogether, by just saying hello now and then.

 

[blessedtoo]

Really? Try explaining that to my small children (6 and under) who ask me why families that we know only have 1-2 children. And this is not a “you have to have X number of children to be a “real” Catholic” line- I wouldn’t presume to know why a couple has the number of children they do- other than these families in question repeatedly say that they’re “done” having children, talk about vasectomies, etc. So maybe the small children you know wouldn’t be confused or question family size. The small children I know, however, do. So, according to the previously mentioned “shun the sinners” camp, these families should be shunned.

Wrong. Small families (or couples with no children) who claim they’re done having children and have taken vocal steps to do so, “blended” families of divorced and remarried parents, unmarried women with their children and their boyfriends all provide visible witness to their sins. To take a “soft” approach to their evangelization, yet to ostracize homosexual sinners is to be the exact sort of hypocrite that critics accuse us of.

And a final observation, Blessedtoo commented that:

Which makes me wonder who it was, exactly who got to rank these sins in order of “context, circumstance, and urgency”? Could someone provide me with the mortal sin ranking system so I can intelligently continue in this thread?
And if we’re going to go ahead and rank mortal sin, then why aren’t we putting chemically contracepting couples who are potentially aborting babies at the very top of the list? Don’t know.
But I stand by my opinion- if you’re going to shun your homosexual neighbors, then you need to shun all the sexual sinners you know.

No one on this thread has suggested “shunning” so why don’t we cut the inflammatory rhetoric for a change?

If I, as a Catholic, decide that I have nothing in common with people who participate demonstrably in immoral lifestyles and show no interest in making a change in those lifestyles, how does that brand me a “bigot” or a “homophobe” or a “hydpocrite”? I am not, in any way, asserting that I am without sin. I AM saying that these particular immoral choices are incongruent with the way I live my life and the way I may choose to raise my children. We all pick and choose friends based on certain commonalities. I would no more choose a friend who spent every night in a bar drinking or a friend who engaged in drug taking because I would share nothing in common with such a person. In the case of the OP, I would also share nothing in common with an active homosexual couple beyond neighborly pleasantries.

As someone who was in that lifestyle, and attempted to maintain friendships after returning to the Church, I can assure you that most active homosexuals are not terribly interested in “hanging out” with faithful Christians. In practice, it becomes quite tedious to duck and dodge conversations of a personal nature that are the hallmarks of friendship. One can only repeat the mantra of “please know that I don’t approve of your lifestyle” so many times before it becomes ineffective and ridiculous. Eventually the time may come when your words seem meaningless because your actions are in contradition.

I do not and have not “shunned” any of the friends from my past. Most of these relationships have faded because our lifestyles are so vastly different. However, if any one of these beloved friends were to express interest in learning about the faith, I would move heaven and earth to be there for them.

 

[Other_Eric]

You have a narrow and personal definition of love not shared by most people. It seems something personal has happened that has engendered this deep and abiding hatred you have. “Lets one do this to him” is perhaps telling. I am sorry for whatever happened Eric, but this is not a solution.

This is nothing more than ad hominem speculation and does nothing to answer my reasoning regarding the hypothetical “love” shared by those with same-sex attraction. This is more avoidance than reply.

Confrontational in your face tactics like this are demonstrably ineffective and counterproductive, as most anyone would assume. That you take this position does suggest that it relates more to a desire to humiliate and release pent up anger than a genuine desire to help someone see the Truth.

Well, which is it? Are such tactics demonstrably ineffective or do you assume that they are? Can you submit here a proof that demonstrates the inefficacy of such tactics or are we meant to merely put our faith in the fallacy of argumentum ad populum because, as you say, this is what “most anyone would assume”?

Jesus was also the undisputed champion of the rejected, humiliated and theologically Other in his society. Indeed Eric, it is nothing more than narrow-minded judgmental bigotry. The Church does not give us license to do what we wish in terms of denigrating others by manipulating doctrine in this way. I would seriously rethink your position and why you hold it.

Admittedly, Jesus was the champion of the rejected, humiliated and the religious outcasts of His day. It is important to recognize that He did not take up their cause at the expense of calling such people to account for their sins.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

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

They are NOT the same.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

The attitude that we are to adopt in relation to this same-sex couple ought be exactly the same attitude we should adopt when confronted with an excommunicate. There are harsh consequences that come as a result of the sin such a couple chooses to engage in. It is the severity of these consequences that constitute the evangelization those with same-sex attraction need to be able to see for themselves how far from Grace they have fallen.

There is no need for harsh consequences, we are all fallible people, we are all sinners. Imposing harder consequences on others because it is precieved as a worse sin than ours is not the way to go through life.

We are too look at each other’s similarities, not look for differences and judge harshly.

Same-gender monogamous relationships should be celebrated for the couple being together, not shunned and degraded as lesser on so many levels.

 

[Feedmysheep]

The attitude that we are to adopt in relation to this same-sex couple ought be exactly the same attitude we should adopt when confronted with an excommunicate. There are harsh consequences that come as a result of the sin such a couple chooses to engage in. It is the severity of these consequences that constitute the evangelization those with same-sex attraction need to be able to see for themselves how far from Grace they have fallen.

1. Please provide documentation for the “treat them as an excommunicate” statement.
2. Yes, there are harsh consequences that result from grave sin. Consequences that GOD chooses, and will provide.
3. You’re suggesting that large-scale ostracizing of homosexuals will be an effective evangelization tool? That by being utterly ignored they’ll see how far from Grace they’ve fallen? Thank the Good Lord above He didn’t take this route. Thank God He didn’t pull the “you’ve sinned, now I’m going to ignore you” card. And thank God He doesn’t call us to do the same.

“If any man say, I love God, and hateth his brother; he is a liar. For he that loveth not his brother, whom he seeth, how can he love God, whom he seeth not?” 1 John 4:20 (D-R)

Love is an ACTION. It is not a feeling. It is an action. If love in action includes shunning sinners rather than sharing Christ’s Gospel with them, then it is truly a world gone mad.

 

[Feedmysheep]

No one on this thread has suggested “shunning” so why don’t we cut the inflammatory rhetoric for a change?

sign Fine. Then you tell me what word I can use that means “ignoring someone based on their sins” that is acceptable to you, and I’ll use it.

If I, as a Catholic, decide that I have nothing in common with people who participate demonstrably in immoral lifestyles and show no interest in making a change in those lifestyles, how does that brand me a “bigot” or a “homophobe” or a “hydpocrite”?

First of all, I want to make it very, very clear that never once in any of my posts did I use the word “bigot” or “homophobe” (nor “hydpocrite”, but I’m assuming that was a typo ) Now you’re the one using inflammatory rhetoric. I am the first one to want to spit when I see the word “homophobe” flung about. Disagreeing with homosexual acts (which I do) is not the same as being AFRAID of them, which the word “homophobia” means. So please, don’t bring issues into the debate which don’t need to be.

Second of all, there is nothing wrong with what you suggest. However, the only way you can possibly know if someone is unrepentant or not in their sin is by talking to them, getting to know them, which is something that you cannot do if you ignore them immediately upon learning they’re homosexual.

I am not, in any way, asserting that I am without sin. I AM saying that these particular immoral choices are incongruent with the way I live my life and the way I may choose to raise my children. We all pick and choose friends based on certain commonalities. I would no more choose a friend who spent every night in a bar drinking or a friend who engaged in drug taking because I would share nothing in common with such a person. In the case of the OP, I would also share nothing in common with an active homosexual couple beyond neighborly pleasantries.

Ummm…how are you so certain that you share nothing in common with an active homosexual? After all, by your own admission, you’re both sinners.

But my argument never was about discretion in friend making. My problem was with more radical posters’ suggestions that sinners must be ignored, yet wouldn’t ignore heterosexual sinners unless fantastic flouting of their sins were witnessed. So out of the three words you used above, hypocrite was the one I used, and applied to specifically to the above situation.

I do not and have not “shunned” any of the friends from my past. Most of these relationships have faded because our lifestyles are so vastly different. However, if any one of these beloved friends were to express interest in learning about the faith, I would move heaven and earth to be there for them.

To put it bluntly, Blessedtoo, you put yourself in the middle of comments I was making towards OtherEric, not you. I never suggested you shunned anyone, I don’t know you or your friends. My whole argument was aimed at OtherEric’s insistance that heterosexual sins be held to a different standard than homosexual ones. I’m glad you’d be willing to help a repentant sinner, that’s what we’re called to do.

 

[Other_Eric]

1. Please provide documentation for the “treat them as an excommunicate” statement.
2. Yes, there are harsh consequences that result from grave sin. Consequences that GOD chooses, and will provide.
3. You’re suggesting that large-scale ostracizing of homosexuals will be an effective evangelization tool? That by being utterly ignored they’ll see how far from Grace they’ve fallen? Thank the Good Lord above He didn’t take this route. Thank God He didn’t pull the “you’ve sinned, now I’m going to ignore you” card. And thank God He doesn’t call us to do the same.

“If any man say, I love God, and hateth his brother; he is a liar. For he that loveth not his brother, whom he seeth, how can he love God, whom he seeth not?” 1 John 4:20 (D-R)

Love is an ACTION. It is not a feeling. It is an action. If love in action includes shunning sinners rather than sharing Christ’s Gospel with them, then it is truly a world gone mad.

The Lord most certainly does take this route. Sin against Him, fail to repent of it and He will most certainly shun you. Such a state is called Hell.

As for the documentation to substantiate the advice I gave in response to your question, I fail to understand. It is my opinion based on the argument I have set forth in this thread. We may debate the efficacy of my suggestion, at which point documentation may be necessary, but at this point I do not see that any is required.

Further, I suggest you read up on the Code of Canon Law promulgated by the Church. The Magisterium has no problem applying consequences to certain severe transgressions that merit them; neither should the faithful.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

The Lord most certainly does take this route. Sin against Him, fail to repent of it and He will most certainly shun you. Such a state is called Hell.

As for the documentation to substantiate the advice I gave in response to your question, I fail to understand. It is my opinion based on the argument I have set forth in this thread. We may debate the efficacy of my suggestion, at which point documentation may be necessary, but at this point I do not see that any is required.

Further, I suggest you read up on the Code of Canon Law promulgated by the Church. The Magisterium has no problem applying consequences to certain severe transgressions that merit them; neither should the faithful.

So, shun others or you will go to hell?

Why does everything have to have a legal reference? Do we all go about life with books of church or country law around us? Are all laws, both chuch and country harshly enforced to the letter?

Of course that is not the case, laws are used as guidelines in day to day life. We are not lawyers, Canon or otherwise, we are all sinful, including Canon Lawyers.

This is where you go beyond the black and white legal discussions and go into real life with real life person to person interaction and refrain from judging other people based on perceptions and stereotypes. Strive to see the good in them, one of the gifts all of us have from God.

 

[Feedmysheep]

The Lord most certainly does take this route. Sin against Him, fail to repent of it and He will most certainly shun you. Such a state is called Hell.

Of course. Who suggested otherwise? How, I ask you, do you spread this message with any hope of efficacy if you advocate the silent treatment towards those who need to hear it most?

As for the documentation to substantiate the advice I gave in response to your question, I fail to understand. It is my opinion based on the argument I have set forth in this thread. We may debate the efficacy of my suggestion, at which point documentation may be necessary, but at this point I do not see that any is required.

Ok, your opinion. Just wanted to make sure we all understood that’s what we had here. Not some sort of official Church teaching on the treatment of homosexuals.

Further, I suggest you read up on the Code of Canon Law promulgated by the Church. The Magisterium has no problem applying consequences to certain severe transgressions that merit them; neither should the faithful.

Yeah…there’s lots of consequences that certain members of Holy Mother Church have the authority to enforce that we don’t all share. I’m pretty sure that I’m not going to find anywhere in Canon Law the suggestion that homosexuals be cut off from human contact.

FMS

 

[Julianna]

So, shun others or you will go to hell?

Why does everything have to have a legal reference? Do we all go about life with books of church or country law around us? I would think lugging those canons around gets pretty heavy and I wonder if one has time to work, play, you know…have a life? Are all laws, both chuch and country harshly enforced to the letter?**Sadly, NewUlm, there is no debating or discussion with the “letter of the law” folks, they are right, you are wrong. **

Of course that is not the case, laws are used as guidelines in day to day life.You would think so… We are not lawyers, Canon or otherwise, we are all sinful, including Canon Lawyers.

This is where you go beyond the black and white legal discussions and go into real life with real life person to person interaction and refrain from judging other people based on perceptions and stereotypes. It’s all about perception…and/or ignorance. If a Catholic lived the letter of law, they certainly would have to seek out a cave and live on berries and leaves, because everything else, coffee, food, clothing, housing, employment…someone, somewhere supports Planned Parenthood, is gay, is living with a person not married, a drunk, a drug-addict, etc. etc., ad naseum. Strive to see the good in them, one of the gifts all of us have from God.

**Some are better at their gifts than others…they know all the answers. Thinking for oneself is not allowed and disagreement is a sin itself. Reaching out to sinners is not a good idea, because “their” sin is much greater than anything we could ever do. They are doomed, so let’s faghettaboutem. **

They shall know us by our ostrachization of them.

Yeah, its sounds silly when you put it that way, now doesn’t it.

 

[blessedtoo]

sign* Fine. Then you tell me what word I can use that means “ignoring someone based on their sins” that is acceptable to you, and I’ll use it.

There has been no suggestion here by OtherEric or anyone else to “ignore someone based on their sins.” I just wish people would refrain from such language. I just re-read this entire thread and nowhere is such a suggestion mentioned. The word “shun” was first put forth by you - no one else.

First of all, I want to make it very, very clear that never once in any of my posts did I use the word “bigot” or “homophobe” (nor “hydpocrite”, but I’m assuming that was a typo ) Now you’re the one using inflammatory rhetoric. I am the first one to want to spit when I see the word “homophobe” flung about. Disagreeing with homosexual acts (which I do) is not the same as being AFRAID of them, which the word “homophobia” means. So please, don’t bring issues into the debate which don’t need to be.

Point taken. I appreciate your restraint. Others should follow your example.

Second of all, there is nothing wrong with what you suggest. However, the only way you can possibly know if someone is unrepentant or not in their sin is by talking to them, getting to know them, which is something that you cannot do if you ignore them immediately upon learning they’re homosexual.

Again, there is no suggestion to ignore anyone.

I think some of us are either naive or deliberately obstinant about how active homosexuals choose to present themselves. The first thing you are going to know about such a person is their sexual orientation because they are COMPELLED to tell everyone and encouraged by our culture to make this the first piece of information they offer. Rarely, in my experience, is such a proclamation followed up by an expressed desire to “repent”. Each situation is different of course, and the OP can discern for herself if her neighbors are open to such a discussion BUT the fact that she is already aware of their “partnership” would lead one to assume that they are not actively expressing a change of heart.

Ummm…how are you so certain that you share noting in common with an active homosexual? After all, by your own admission, you’re both sinners.

Well, I thought I answered that in my above post.

But my argument never was about discretion in friend making. My problem was with more radical posters’ suggestions that sinners must be ignored, yet wouldn’t ignore heterosexual sinners unless fantastic flouting of their sins were witnessed. So out of the three words you used above, hypocrite was the one I used, and applied to specifically to the above situation.

“Ignored”. Here is what one of those “other posters” suggested:

As an observant Catholic, it will be important for you to condition these individuals’ friendship with you on their adherence to a certain baseline morality.

That is a far cry “ignoring” and “shunning”.

To put it bluntly, Blessedtoo, you put yourself in the middle of comments I was making towards OtherEric, not you. I never suggested you shunned anyone, I don’t know you or your friends. My whole argument was aimed at OtherEric’s insistance that heterosexual sins be held to a different standard than homosexual ones. I’m glad you’d be willing to help a repentant sinner, that’s what we’re called to do

Does that mean I am not allowed to respond?

I don’t think this is the argument being made here as it was addressed in this post:

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.

Because this issue ALWAYS draws such passionate responses here at CAF (and in general), wouldn’t it be wide to just address what is actually being said rather than what we THINK is being said?

 

[Feedmysheep]

There has been no suggestion here by OtherEric or anyone else to “ignore someone based on their sins.” I just wish people would refrain from such language. I just re-read this entire thread and nowhere is such a suggestion mentioned. The word “shun” was first put forth by you - no one else.

Hummm…let me go back and see. Maybe I completely made a left turn into wrongville here…oh wait:

1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

If they claim to be Christian, then you should have no contact according to Paul.

This one from OtherEric:

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.

Another from OtherEric:

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.

So to say that no one’s suggested “shunning” is disingenuous. True, I am the one who first used that term, yet only in light of above suggestions, which clearly involve the cutting off a particular group from society. You call it what you want, the suggestions and results are the same.

And OtherEric, I’m not trying to pick on you by constantly quoting you. Honestly, you are at least forthright in what you’re suggesting, which is refreshing.