Scandal - A Hypothetical

[mgoforth]

There’s a difference. It is natural and in good order, normally, for men to live with other men.

Well, yes…if those men don’t identify themselves as gay. But for the two men in your example I don’t think it is natural or in good order. As you said, they openly identify as homosexuals and that would cause scandal for many people.

Question for you: I am attracted to both men and women. Are you saying that it was morally wrong for me to live in a group housing situation with other men, back when I was single?

I won’t speculate on the morality of your past living arrangements. I would say there’s nothing wrong with living alone if one can afford it prior to marriage. Solitude can bring us closer to God, which is actually the point of living. Society would have us believe that a relationship with another human is our raison d’etre, but this is wrong. As St. Paul would say, if being married helps us find our way to Heaven there’s nothing wrong with that, but he actually advocated the single life.

 

[LongingSoul]

To clarify, my goals in this thread were twofold: (1) to try and determine what constitutes scandal, and (2) to seek understanding on what sorts of living arrangements are permissible for those who are gay or bisexual.

For example…

If Church teaching says that bisexual individuals are only allowed to live with family members, or alone, then I have a problem with Church teaching. Now I think the Church has not spoken on this issue, but I am disturbed by the way that people seem to fill in this gap by assuming that avoiding the near occasion of sin is the thing of central importance.

Avoiding scandal is certainly a thing of central importance as whether we like it or not, our behaviour as Catholics reflects on the Church and means we hold in our hands the power to lead another soul astray.

The thing is that scandal is not a danger to those strong in their faith whether they believe that the couple is romantically/sexually active or not. Scandal affects those who aren’t sure of Catholic teaching or not familiar with the true spirit of catholicism. These are the people that take their lead from others who identify and practice as Catholics and may formulate their morality based on that.

As I’ve demonstrated by the above post, the Church takes the problem of same sex attraction so seriously in the priestly brotherhood, that it is treated very specifically and intensely. It is a strong urge like all sexual urges. You have to treat it with respect. Most of us are aware of the strength of sexual urges and their power in the presence of unmet needs. We don’t put ourselves or recommend others, live in temptations way unless the need is being properly and healthily dealt with in the interests of Christian purity.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well, yes…if those men don’t identify themselves as gay. But for the two men in your example I don’t think it is natural or in good order. As you said, they openly identify as homosexuals and that would cause scandal for many people.

What if they identified as “celibate homosexuals”, and never said that they were simply “gay”? Would that change your thinking?

I won’t speculate on the morality of your past living arrangements.

I assure you it wasn’t the near occasion of sin, not even close.

I would say there’s nothing wrong with living alone if one can afford it prior to marriage. Solitude can bring us closer to God, which is actually the point of living. Society would have us believe that a relationship with another human is our raison d’etre, but this is wrong. As St. Paul would say, if being married helps us find our way to Heaven there’s nothing wrong with that, but he actually advocated the single life.

“Single” for St. Paul hardly meant living alone. I doubt St. Paul ever slept in a house alone, nor did hardly anyone alive until the past 100 years. Living alone is, in general, bad for the soul. That’s not a criticism of people who live alone, but it is a reality. We grow in virtue through community. Now, honestly, I don’t think two people living together in a house by themselves is good for the soul either – whether they’re married, or friends, or whatever. We need rich and vibrant communities all around us.

These communities do not bring us away from God; they are supposed to bring us toward God. Sure, solitude can bring us closer to God. So can cancer. That doesn’t mean we should live alone, or seek out cancer.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Avoiding scandal is certainly a thing of central importance as whether we like it or not, our behaviour as Catholics reflects on the Church and means we hold in our hands the power to lead another soul astray.

But some people are scandalized by things that aren’t objectively scandalous. That’s why a number of posters in this thread have said that they don’t see my hypothetical as scandalous, and others have disagreed.

Perhaps the answer is straight out of Scripture: Paul says not to eat pork around the Christian Jews, because the Jews will be scandalized – even though there is nothing wrong with eating pork. So perhaps the two men I’m describing should deliberately attempt to appear not to be a couple, not to be living in the same place, whether or not they are living in the same place? But that strikes me as duplicitous. Huh, I honestly can’t figure this one out.

The thing is that scandal is not a danger to those strong in their faith whether they believe that the couple is romantically/sexually active or not. Scandal affects those who aren’t sure of Catholic teaching or not familiar with the true spirit of catholicism. These are the people that take their lead from others who identify and practice as Catholics and may formulate their morality based on that.

Interesting – so they say, “John and Alex are living together, so why can’t we?” even though they are looking for an excuse to have sex and John and Alex are celibate. This is a concern. I’m not sure it’s enough of a concern to justify making a person live alone, but I’d love to see people try and figure out living situations that avoid scandal altogether, without forcing people to live alone.

As I’ve demonstrated by the above post, the Church takes the problem of same sex attraction so seriously in the priestly brotherhood, that it is treated very specifically and intensely. It is a strong urge like all sexual urges. You have to treat it with respect. Most of us are aware of the strength of sexual urges and their power in the presence of unmet needs. We don’t put ourselves or recommend others, live in temptations way unless the need is being properly and healthily dealt with in the interests of Christian purity.

Don’t get me started on the priesthood and homosexuality. The Church swung from one extreme – tolerating semi-open homosexually active priests – to another extreme – telling chaste homosexuals that they’re not fit to be priests. Suffice it to say that I don’t think the Church is done changing its policies on this issue (which Francis has already telegraphed, in my opinion).

At any rate, why do you assume that the homosexual men I was discussing are affectively immature?

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, being gay is objectively disordered. But admitting openly and honestly to suffering from that disorder is actually a good thing. Come on out of the closet, get accepted by the community, get help and support from the community, and have a better chance of successfully living a chaste life.

Not to mention how badly catholic youth needs role models! A young Catholic suffering from SSA seems to see one of two options. 1) leave the church and go live a gay life or 2) deny your SSA entirely, live ashamed and embarrassed, and suffer alone and in silence. Having openly gay Catholics in the community that are living chastely and who are accepted as fully part of the Catholic community gives those young folks a better option.

I disagree. Openly admitting to carrying a cross isn’t prideful or pretentious.

The problem is that most Catholics who wish to continue being Catholics aren’t admitting to SSA. They aren’t saying “I’m gay and I am a practicing Catholic living a chaste life.” because they are afraid of being rejected by the community, rejected by their families, and always under suspicion of some sort of wrongdoing.

I ask myself why are there no examples of the cross of SSA specifically in the Bible and why among the 2000 years of the making of saints… don’t we have reference to the cross of SSA. It must have plagued people throughout history?

I really feel that we have numbed our sense of the unsavoury nature of the sin of sodomy and homosexual behaviours in a way that earlier doomed civilizations have in the past. I was even shocked to learn in the last year, that in Christopher Wests treatment of Theology of the Body, he posits that anal sex might be a valid sexual act of marriage so long as the male finishes up in the vagina. That is horrible catechesis and reveals the complete lack of understanding the beauty of Gods creation.

There are equally as many people suffering crosses of having unnatural leanings but don’t ‘come out’ in order for acceptance. For example, men who are attracted to children and the like. Part of our natural abhorrance of these behaviours creates the taboo that helps people live up to the godly ideals in their lives. Taboos serve and edifying purpose in life and when the taboos are dismantled and the civilization begins to accomodate the behaviours as legitimate in a secular environment… that’s when those striving to godliness are torn by the pull of opposing agendas.

I do have tremendous admiration for ministries like Courage but I really believe the ideal in a more healthy civilisation is to treat the crosses we bear as humans as generic. Our crosses can be dealt with in confession and counselling and lived heroically without naming them specifically but joining them to St Pauls ‘thorn in the flesh’ which has been comforting and edifying for all manner of pilgrims in dealing with their personal thorns for the last 2000 years.

 

[John_of_Woking]

Suppose that two men live in the same apartment and are clearly best friends. They are quite affectionate with each other, verbally and physically, but there does not appear to be any hint of sexual intention behind their affection. They go many places together, including church. If you get to know them, they will not hide the fact that they are gay, and pretty much everyone knows they live together. They call each other “friends”, and sometimes when they go out, they say that they are going on “dates”.

Are these two men committing the sin of scandal?

No scandal or sin here. Heroic chastity and good friendship are not sins:thumbsup: . The only thing I puzzle over is the “will not hide the fact they are gay”. I suppose so long as they aren’t broadcasting it.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No scandal or sin here. Heroic chastity and good friendship are not sins:thumbsup: . The only thing I puzzle over is the “will not hide the fact they are gay”. I suppose so long as they aren’t broadcasting it.

Yeah, I don’t mean that they go around mentioning that they are gay in contexts where it makes no sense, or act like gayness is the central fact of their existence.

 

[mgoforth]

What if they identified as “celibate homosexuals”, and never said that they were simply “gay”? Would that change your thinking?

Probably not. The underlying attraction doesn’t vanish just because someone claims to be celibate. Again, it’s the same reason the Church would be against un-married heterosexual couples from living together, even if they claim to be celibate.

“Single” for St. Paul hardly meant living alone. I doubt St. Paul ever slept in a house alone, nor did hardly anyone alive until the past 100 years.

Do you think that St. Paul slept in a house with women? Doubtful. For St. Paul to sleep in a house with other men would not be a problem because he most likely was not homosexual.

Living alone is, in general, bad for the soul. That’s not a criticism of people who live alone, but it is a reality. We grow in virtue through community. Now, honestly, I don’t think two people living together in a house by themselves is good for the soul either – whether they’re married, or friends, or whatever. We need rich and vibrant communities all around us.

All of this is your opinion, which is contrary to the lives of many saints who very profitably lived alone.

These communities do not bring us away from God; they are supposed to bring us toward God. Sure, solitude can bring us closer to God. So can cancer. That doesn’t mean we should live alone, or seek out cancer.

Community can bring someone closer to God if living with others is part of God’s plan for that person. You can’t generalize to all, or even a majority of people. If God’s plan is for a person to live alone, then living with others will move the person further from God. Perhaps God would like to see many more people (homosexual and heterosexual) living alone than you realize. I don’t mean such people need to be complete hermits. You can still socialize with others and live alone.