Should active homosexuals be permitted to flaunt their lifestyle at a CatholicSchool?

[felra]

Other Eric:

Hi felra!

But, you use the term “dyad.” This is also a de facto legitimization of the illicit relationship. You’ve reduced the profound arguments against homosexual behavior to a semantic game. In this way, you’re no better than the homosexuals themselves who argue endlessly over what the correct word usage for their condition should be.

I concede that this exchange has reduced to splice and dice semantics without useful contribution to arguing the issue at hand. I relinquish the temptation to be drawn into a circular rebuttal. My point has been made.

 

[speedy5]

In my opinion, school is a learning facitlity, regardless of what kind of school it is. Catholic or proteststant, private or public. It shouldn’t even be permitted for heterosexual couples as well as homosexual couples. but that’s just my opinion, i could be wrong.

 

[Other_Eric]

Promotor Fidei:

Were I pastor, where would I draw the line on “flaunting” sin when someone is publicly known to be in a state of mortal sin and is unrepentant? I would disallow any more than mere attendance to a Church or school event. Such a person should not be eucharistic minster, lectors, volunteers or in any kind of leadership positon. However, no-one should be denied attendance unless they are disruptive.

Hi Promotor Fidei!

I’ll concede your point about the couple in Costa Mesa, since I am far removed from the situation and can only rely on what has been written about it in the media.

It seems to me that in order for a sin to be publically known, the couple in question must flaunt it in some way. You’ve done a fairly good job of describing what the consequences of flaunting should be, but I’m still not sure what should trigger those consequences.

For example, I think we can both agree that the couple in Costa Mesa leave no question to the imagination about what is going on between them. Perhaps they even make it explicit in some way by referring to each other as “husbands” or something similar. Not every such couple is going to be this forward.

Let’s say, for instance, that Richard Simmons starts attending church functions and enrolls his child at the school. Let’s also say that Mr. Simmons lists another man on his list of people authorized to pick the child up after school. This fact coupled with Mr. Simmons’s peculiarly “energetic” mannerisms might lead some to believe that he is, in fact, a practicing homosexual. The problem is, that Mr. Simmons has never said anything that would make this explicit, and the conclusion can only be arrived at through inference and assumption.

My question is, in cases like this, do the consequences kick in until such time as Richard Simmons can either demonstrate or flaunt a heterosexual orientation? Is the congregation owed a different standard of behavior from Richard Simmons? Should he be required to confess a chaste lifestyle in some public forum, like the church bulletin?

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

My question is, in cases like this, do the consequences kick in until such time as Richard Simmons can either demonstrate or flaunt a heterosexual orientation? Is the congregation owed a different standard of behavior from Richard Simmons? Should he be required to confess a chaste lifestyle in some public forum, like the church bulletin?

The standard of behavior is what he Church asks of us and what the virtue of prudence would dictate. The Church asks us not to give scandal and not to engage in sin. It is that simple.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

The standard of behavior is what he Church asks of us and what the virtue of prudence would dictate. The Church asks us not to give scandal and not to engage in sin. It is that simple.

Hi fix!

I don’t think that it’s simple at all. What might scandalize me may not so effect my neighbor. Behavior that might be appropriate in one area of the country may be imprudent in another area or even another parish.

 

[felra]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

I don’t think that it’s simple at all. What might scandalize me may not so effect my neighbor. Behavior that might be appropriate in one area of the country may be imprudent in another area or even another parish.

rel·a·tiv·ism, n, defn; A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition*
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.*

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

I don’t think that it’s simple at all. What might scandalize me may not so effect my neighbor. Behavior that might be appropriate in one area of the country may be imprudent in another area or even another parish.

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.87

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."88 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,89 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"90

 

[fix]

rel·a·tiv·ism, n, defn; A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition*
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.*

Yes. How can homosexual conduct and example not be scandalous to the faithful, no matter the parish?

 

[Other_Eric]

rel·a·tiv·ism, n, defn; A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Hi felra!

So you agree with me, I assume? We must establish bright-line standards for a same-sex couple so that the institution will be immunized to the dangers of relavitism.

 

[Other_Eric]

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.87

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."88 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,89 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"90

Hi fix!

So, scandal can be very subjective. If we do not establish the bright-line standards or we risk the faithful slipping into the errors of relavitism.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

So, scandal can be very subjective. If we do not establish the bright-line standards or we risk the faithful slipping into the errors of relavitism.

As Catholics we know what sin is, so how is it relativism to understand when a scandal is a scandal. I would think only one with a poorly formed conscience would not know?

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

Hi Other Eric. I agree, I don’t think any objective manual can be written for what kind of behavior gives scandal. In this case and in my opinion:

1. Neither individual in a couple should volunteer at the school or act in any roles where they can be interpreted as role models to the children of the school. When interfacing with the children of the school, such as attending a science fiar, it would be best if they did not appear together as a couple.
2. They should avoid showing any physical signs of affection for each other while on school grounds. They should be models of decorum.
3. They should be circumspect in their language, not discussing their relationship or their views on such relationships.

If these steps are followed, then I would think the school could avoid materially participating in the sin of scandal. The school could then allow the couple to enroll the child.

Because of the nature of their relationship, yes, they would be (and will be) held to a higher standard than married couples.

As far as what constitutes “flaunting it”… unless the couple is secretive it’s quite likely everyone will know what the nature of their relationship is. Listing themselves as husbands and co-parents is sufficient.

Some Catholic schools have become entirely secular, losing all Catholic flavor. Those sorts of schools wouldn’t care about scandal. In my opinion such a school should be shut down or separated from the Church entirely. Church schools are not money-making operations, let others run secular private schools.

However, I would think that a school that a trulyCatholic school would have to follow at least partially the guidelines outlined above in order to avoid materially participating in the sin of scandal.

 

[felra]

Other Eric:

Hi felra!

So you agree with me, I assume? We must establish bright-line standards for a same-sex couple so that the institution will be immunized to the dangers of relavitism.

“Bright-line standards” for moral behavior already exist for those who profess to be Catholic. Those who choose to engage in deviant, immoral behavior do not necessitate an asterisk clause. What they really need is repentance and conversion and the truth spoken in love; not cuddling, accommodation for their sinful choices.

 

[fix]

“Bright-line standards” for moral behavior already exist for those who profess to be Catholic. Those who choose to engage in deviant, immoral behavior do not necessitate an asterisk clause. What they really need is repentance and conversion and the truth spoken in love; not cuddling, accommodation for their sinful choices.

Right. Those that want a copy of the standards should read the CCC.

 

[Other_Eric]

Promotor Fidei:

Hi Other Eric. I agree, I don’t think any objective manual can be written for what kind of behavior gives scandal. In this case and in my opinion:

1. Neither individual in a couple should volunteer at the school or act in any roles where they can be interpreted as role models to the children of the school. When interfacing with the children of the school, such as attending a science fiar, it would be best if they did not appear together as a couple.
2. They should avoid showing any physical signs of affection for each other while on school grounds. They should be models of decorum.
3. They should be circumspect in their language, not discussing their relationship or their views on such relationships.

If these steps are followed, then I would think the school could avoid materially participating in the sin of scandal. The school could then allow the couple to enroll the child.

Because of the nature of their relationship, yes, they would be (and will be) held to a higher standard than married couples.

As far as what constitutes “flaunting it”… unless the couple is secretive it’s quite likely everyone will know what the nature of their relationship is. Listing themselves as husbands and co-parents is sufficient.

Some Catholic schools have become entirely secular, losing all Catholic flavor. Those sorts of schools wouldn’t care about scandal. In my opinion such a school should be shut down or separated from the Church entirely. Church schools are not money-making operations, let others run secular private schools.

However, I would think that a school that a trulyCatholic school would have to follow at least partially the guidelines outlined above in order to avoid materially participating in the sin of scandal.

Hi Promotor Fidei!

Thanks. This is exactly what I was looking for.

 

[felra]

Promotor Fidei:

Because of the nature of their relationship, yes, they would be (and will be) held to a higher standard than married couples.

Hog wash. What “higher standard” for behavior can you possibly be alluding to for a same-sex “couple” actively living in sin? They have already thrown out the “standards” for morality while wanting the benefits of Catholic formation. I believe that Jesus used the word “whitewash” to describe superficial covering up the rotting sin.

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

felra:

Hog wash. What “higher standard” for behavior can you possibly be alluding to for a same-sex “couple” actively living in sin? They have already thrown out the “standards” for morality while wanting the benefits of Catholic formation. I believe that Jesus used the word “whitewash” to describe superficial covering up the rotting sin.

Felra, I’m not saying that they’re not in mortal sin. No-one is even prentending they are not. Avoiding the sin of scandal is a different matter. Scandal is leading others to sin by word or example. In avoiding scandal, appearances ARE important.

 

[felra]

Promotor Fidei:

Felra, I’m not saying that they’re not in mortal sin. No-one is even prentending they are not. Avoiding the sin of scandal is a different matter. Scandal is leading others to sin by word or example. In avoiding scandal, appearances ARE important.

I do get it: It they refuse to do it right, then at least not do it wrong for others to see. My problem is with “standards”, as if a person/“couple” living in a sinful lifestyle really need “standards” for non-scandalous behavior; or if they would even care to be responsive/accountable to the greater Christian community. I vote for the one strike (offense) and your out in such situations.

 

[Other_Eric]

felra:

I do get it: It they refuse to do it right, then at least not do it wrong for others to see. My problem is with “standards”, as if a person/“couple” living in a sinful lifestyle really need “standards” for non-scandalous behavior; or if they would even care to be responsive/accountable to the greater Christian community. I vote for the one strike (offense) and your out in such situations.

Hi felra!

So what constitutes a strike? A single reference to same-sex partner as a spouse? Wearing a wedding band? Living with a member of one’s own gender? Supporting a politician who’s views on same-sex couples might not exactly mirror the Church’s? Speaking with a lisp?

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi felra!

So what constitutes a strike? A single reference to same-sex partner as a spouse? Wearing a wedding band? Living with a member of one’s own gender? Supporting a politician who’s views on same-sex couples might not exactly mirror the Church’s? Speaking with a lisp?

Why is an exhaustive list necessary? Anyone who holds themself out as married and is not would be a scandal and that may be conveyed in many ways.