Dex, I’m not talking about presumption, which is indeed sinful. In terms of the sin of scandal, I’m talking about a combination of objectively observable circumstances, namely:
- The two same-sex people are co-habiting
AND
- Their sexual orientation is publicly known, and not denied by them.
If both of these circumstances exist simultaneously, scandal exists, again regardless of chastity. Take one away, no scandal.
Now, if you take away number 2), you still have the potential for the near occasion of sin, but I’m merely talking about scandal here.
The burden on the seemingly limited choices for a homosexual person are indeed significant. It is a cross to bare, and whatever the Body of Christ can do for such a person should be done without hesitation. My immediate thought is that they should be quite capable of living alone, working and supporting themselves, surrounding themselves with friends and family, perhaps pets, etc. I wouldn’t feel too swayed by an argument which posited that they should be able to live with another homosexual because they need the financial support of that arrangement. That’s not even a valid argument for a heterosexual. As far as loneliness, that is a subjective argument, and will vary from individual to individual. Many people are quite content alone, regardless of orientation. All I’m saying is that we can’t presume loneliness objectively. And again, loneliness has more cures than simply having a roommate.
I also would see no problem with them joining a religious order. Both scandal and near occasion of sin would require more than one known homosexual in the same living environment, not just one. But to be honest, I actually don’t know the official Church position on homosexuals in religious orders, so I’ll defer to someone else.