Should I Baby-Sit the Child of Lesbians?

[EasterJoy]

But it mitigates culpability through invincible ignorance.

When the person is ignorant by reason of invincibility, and not simply stubborn in refusal to act according to what they have heard. If it could be automatically assumed that anyone who chooses sin must be unaware of its nature or its gravity, mortal sin would be impossible.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think honesty requires that the OP tell her prospective employers that although she does not reject lesbians as persons, she does believe that homosexual behavior is inherently immoral. That might solve her problem right there.

 

[OraLabora]

When the person is ignorant by reason of invincibility, and not simply stubborn in refusal to act according to what they have heard. If it could be automatically assumed that anyone who chooses sin must be unaware of its nature or its gravity, mortal sin would be impossible.

We are working on the assumption, here, that they are not Catholic. Presumably they have therefore heard from some sources that homosexuality is bad, and from others, that it is good. As Catholics we have a duty to correctly form our consciences. Non-Catholics cannot be held to the same standard. You can’t expect someone to learn to run before they learn to walk.

 

[ringil]

Fifty years ago, I was the kid faithful Catholics were wondering about because my parents weren’t married and my father took off before I was born. Family friends and realtives, Catholics all, had a good number of conversations about the morality of my “situation,” how sad it was that I was likely to turn out “just like my mother,” if it was sinful to let their kids play with me, would they be sinning if I went to their house, if I should be allowed to attend Catholic school, etc. Many of these talks occured right in front of me, as if my out-of-wedlock birth made me somehow immune to harsh words.

My first grade teacher, a sister, stood me in front of our class and told my classsmates that I was a “bastard.” She then went on to explain what that word meant. She told them they would be sinning if they played with me at reces. This was a small town, everybody knew everybody. She told them my father’s name, which is how I learned it, and told them that my mother had always been “loose.” All this to six-year-olds. Yeah.

So, from where I’m sitting I’d much rather see kids and their parents accepted. Just accepted. No pity. No condemnation. No judgement, which seems to be a favorite activity of people who think they live in Moral HIghgroundsville. Just accepted.

Babysit for 'em.

Really?!? Man, that’s screwed up!!!

This sister should get some kind of award for awfulness or something!! Jeeze!

 

[Personanongrata]

And these methods are a natural byproduct of unitive love? One elegant act?

It doesn’t matter “how” they got here. All children are gifts from God. He loves them all the same.

 

[Personanongrata]

I think honesty requires that the OP tell her prospective employers that although she does not reject lesbians as persons, she does believe that homosexual behavior is inherently immoral. That might solve her problem right there.

Some of my co-workers are gay and one of the managers is as well. I certainly would not encourage an employee to go to the boss to announce their belief that homosexual behavior is inherently immoral. That would not be smart.

 

[OraLabora]

Some of my co-workers are gay and one of the managers is as well. I certainly would not encourage an employee to go to the boss to announce their belief that homosexual behavior is inherently immoral. That would not be smart.

Haha, true and you say that to a “prospective” employer they won’t be prospective for very long.

 

[Elizabeth502]

As I explained earlier, a company, hiring people through the employment procedures required by the government – with forms, jurisdictions, and the like – is a completely different situation than a private household soliciting for domestic help, and an individual candidate considering whether to work or not work in such a given environment. What’s required of the employer is different than what’s required of an employee. An employee in a public (non-home) environment could even turn down a job based on, “I see that you have a Christian prayer card on your desk; I don’t like Christians; end of interview.” Or, “prayer rug on your floor {and I don’t like Muslims).” Etc. And that employee candidate has violated nothing and will not be sued.

The OP is under no Christian moral or secular civil obligation to work in a private environment which produces discomfort for any reason, including if the household watches too much TV for the OP’s taste and moral standards, etc. The children, begotten through any means, are not entitled to babysitting from Christians, Muslims, Jews, or atheists, simply because the children exist, and because certain posters demand that the rest of the world pass some kind of invisible Tolerance Litmus Test.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

In answer to the question in the OP, I don’t know that you couldn’t babysit (as I don’t think babysitting amounts to an approval or a disapproval of them, their family, or choices they may or may not have made unless they take you aside and say, “in order to babysit, you must agree with everything we do and are,” and that’s highly unlikely) but I also don’t think that you must or should, particularly if there’s something in or about their home that makes you uncomfortable.

Moral issues aside, you’re selling your labor. You don’t need to sell it to everybody or anybody. Why you would or wouldn’t is immaterial. Isn’t that the bottom line? Elizabeth’s post is quite right here. There’s no need to feel conflicted one way or another.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Tighty_Whitey]

But how far do you take this with mortal sin? Grave matter is grave matter, It can condemn to hell. Would you say the same if the person were a child molester. The idea that we cannot judge is so far away from true Christian gospel that I shiver for our own souls somtimes more than those we “shouldnt be judging”

I might babysit but what are the “parents” doing? Would you babysit so they could go to a gay bar? A “pride’ parade. Or what if they just are going out to a romantic dinner. I might feel like I was participating in their lie.”

Again, would you babysit so a bank robber could rob banks?

Grave matter abounds. Should she sit for a H/W where the husband masturbates regularly? Oh, you’ll say well she doesn’t know about that sin. Well, guess what we’re all sinners.

We are commanded to love God with all of our heart, mind and soul and our neighbor as ourself. The story of the Good Samaritan is a good point of reference and Mother Teresa got it right.

Your examples are very funny to me. Should she sit for a child molester? OF COURSE!! At least that would be an opportunity to get the child away from the parent/molester. Would she sit so the parents could rob a bank? No, I think she’d likely call the police.

The gay pride/gay bar/romatic dinner? Yes absolutely, lest they take the child with them.

Jesus gave us many examples, the story of the Good Samaritan, the woman at the well, the story of Nicodemas, the woman accused of adultery, the Roman Soldier. Live in the knowledge that God loves you and that you are called to share that love.

 

[EasterJoy]

We are working on the assumption, here, that they are not Catholic. Presumably they have therefore heard from some sources that homosexuality is bad, and from others, that it is good. As Catholics we have a duty to correctly form our consciences. Non-Catholics cannot be held to the same standard. You can’t expect someone to learn to run before they learn to walk.

We can’t assume they aren’t doing their best, they could be invincibly ignorant, but we also cannot assume that they are not Catholic, that Catholic or not they have not been taught about right and wrong, or that they have not shouted down their consciences in order to live a life that pleases them. All these are possible.

If one has pursued the truth and is doing one’s best, then there is the hope of culpability being erased out of one’s invincible ignorance. A scrupulous person is going to make some wrong decisions for which they are not culpable, because at some point you have to let go of fear and do your best.

That does not imply that a person who is living outside moral law does not know better. There is a point at which one crosses the line between unknowing (invincible ignorance) and knowing (presumption or despair).

 

[Catholicpotato]

Grave matter abounds. Should she sit for a H/W where the husband masturbates regularly? Oh, you’ll say well she doesn’t know about that sin. Well, guess what we’re all sinners.

We are commanded to love God with all of our heart, mind and soul and our neighbor as ourself. The story of the Good Samaritan is a good point of reference and Mother Teresa got it right.

Your examples are very funny to me. Should she sit for a child molester? OF COURSE!! At least that would be an opportunity to get the child away from the parent/molester. Would she sit so the parents could rob a bank? No, I think she’d likely call the police.

The gay pride/gay bar/romatic dinner? Yes absolutely, lest they take the child with them.

Jesus gave us many examples, the story of the Good Samaritan, the woman at the well, the story of Nicodemas, the woman accused of adultery, the Roman Soldier. Live in the knowledge that God loves you and that you are called to share that love.

What gay bar do you know of that allows children? Though Im sure we are coming to that as a society. You dont babysit so a child molester can go hunting, call the authorities. You dont babysit so an adulterer can cheat and you dont babysit so homosexuals can flourish in a lifestyle that is harmful not only to their souls but also their children. As any parent knows, finding a sitter or not pretty much decides what you will do. I dont make my decisions based on what they might do but i am not in the habit of making the road to sin paved and smother either…
If these women need a sitter to go to RCIA classes, or to a courage meeting then sign me up!!!

 

[EasterJoy]

Some of my co-workers are gay and one of the managers is as well. I certainly would not encourage an employee to go to the boss to announce their belief that homosexual behavior is inherently immoral. That would not be smart.

Do you work for a gay bar that exists so homosexuals can pick up casual sexual partners? That is relevant to whether you should take your job. Otherwise, the sexual orientation of your co-worker and manager is totally irrelevant to your job. Of course we’re going to work with gay people. Gay people with a live-in lover have to eat, too. So do people who cheat on their taxes or cheat on their wives or live with their opposite-sex lover. You are right: that doesn’t mean a Catholic can’t babysit their child or install their wiring.

Still, the OP is helping two lesbians in their capacity as co-parents, and that is a close participation in the life of the household. She is concerned that she ought not be doing this. I would argue that as long as they are aware that she accepts them and accepts their child, that she would not dream of treating them differently any more than she’d treat a divorced and re-married couple differently, but will not be reading “Heather Has Two Mommies” to their child, then they can choose her or not. It is something they can all talk about.

If she wants to be smart, she can. The act of caring for a child doesn’t make her complicit with the living arrangments in the household. The act of accepting a babysitting job isn’t a vote of confidence for the household, not until you are asked to uphold immoral house rules. Babysitting for a man who cheats on his wife is one thing. Babysitting so that he *can *cheat on his wife is another. Reading story books to his kids that imply he ought to be able to cheat on his wife is over the top.

She may feel far more at ease if she is more up front, but you are right: until they ask her to do what she can’t do, she doesn’t have to say anything. I’m just thinking that when that time comes, they might rightly ask her: Why didn’t you say so?

 

[mystagogia]

I would not feel comfortable babysitting for lesbians. That’s too close to being an enabler of a wrong lifestyle. When they ask you to do this they are requiring your approval of their lifestyle by this act. It is implicit in there.

Here’s a caution: depending upon in which state you live, you may be legally required to babysit the child if you babysit for other children. If your babysitting is a business you may not have a legal basis to refuse service to anyone based on their sexual preference. Cases like this are popping up with regard to other forms of business. For example, in Vermont right now a devout Catholic couple is in trouble because they refused to book a lesbian wedding reception in their inn citing religious conflict with gay marriage. Gay couples aren’t unwelcome as regular customers at the inn for lodging and other accomodations, but the owners drew the line with harboring gay wedding receptions. The ACLU was happy to take them to court pro bono on behalf of the lesbians.

Be careful. As a Catholic in any kind of business you may find yourself in the crosshairs of people who seek to test you for anything they can decry as discrimination or rights violations.

Yes this might even apply to babysitting. This is no longer the America in which I grew up. It is one in which young girls are having curbside lemonade stands shut down because of lack of proper permitting and licensing. Do you think they wouldn’t pillory an unlicensed babysitter who refulses to service gays? Today’s America is often openly hostile to the traditions and practices of the past as many elements are dedicated to smashing them and reforming them according to their own image.

Be sharp, be aware. Pray for guidance and protection. And keep your head down.

 

[Elizabeth502]

**If **your babysitting is a business

Not the situation being described and discussed. The OP does not offer a babysitting business. As I have said three times now, being in business (being a vendor, an employer, a provider of services to the general public) is different from responding to a solicitation (private or public) as the baby-sitter.

 

[mystagogia]

Not the situation being described and discussed. The OP does not offer a babysitting business. As I have said three times now, being in business (being a vendor, an employer, a provider of services to the general public) is different from responding to a solicitation (private or public) as the baby-sitter.

I am not certain that distinction exists - at least not everywhere. For instance, in Houston a Christian freelance handyman turned down a solicitiaon for work from a gay couple on the grounds that he did chose not to work for homosexuals. A brouhaha ensued. The fallout was that this turned out to be legal in Houston, but not in Austin. It also sparked an effort to get the law changed in Houston to prevent this from happening, and this effort will probably be successful (if it isn’t already). Another outcome was the handyman faced furious public outcry by gay activist groups and had his name drug through the mud. I would advise being very clear on local laws; they vary from country to country, state to state, and city to city.

If you turn down a solicitation from a gay person on the grounds of their sexuality a good chance does exist that they will interpret it as a civil rights affront. They may be motivated to pursue this, warranted or not, and they often have activist legal means at the disposal to initiate such proceedings with little or no legal costs to themselves.

That is the nature of the world many of us find today.

 

[Elizabeth502]

If you turn down a solicitation from a gay person on the grounds of their sexuality a good chance does exist that they will interpret it as a civil rights affront. They may be motivated to pursue this, warranted or not, and they often have activist legal means at the disposal to initiate such proceedings with little or no legal costs to themselves.

Well, if someone is going to be so foolish as to say, “I think you’re gay;” or “I assume you’re gay,” “and therefore I am not going to offer you my services,” then that person frankly lacks a lot of common sense, and may be inviting a confrontation or “issue.” But without such an specific statement on the part of the person refusing to provide services, no lawsuit would have a snowball’s chance in Hell. This is not the former Soviet Union, where you can be arrested or tried or punished merely on vague suspicion.

Extremely few people who identify as homosexuals actually say in their ads, “By the way, I am/we are gay,” so a responder may not even have sufficient grounds to be certain of a lifestyle one way or the other. If such a responder does answer an ad with explicit identifying information, then, again, the responder is foolish if he never had an intention to work for such people to begin with, let alone if he provides that reason for not accepting the job. The point of this thread is that no obligation exists to provide a reason. Ever. You can refuse to respond, you can couch your rejection in vague terms, etc.

Some gays do say in ads, “Gay-friendly household,” or “seeking gay-friendly provider of services,” and again, if a disapproving responder were even to respond to such an explicit ad, then I’m not terribly sympathetic for whatever ensues. If, OTOH, he arrives at the household and feels uncomfortable there, he can state that he will “check his calendar for conflicting jobs,” or he can “investigate whether he has the tools to complete the job,” etc., and then “get back to them.”

 

[mystagogia]

Where are you, Elizabeth502? You seem to be making a lot of assumptions that your idea of the legal code applies to me. Realize that this world is big, that people who visit this forum might be doing so from places other than down your street.

The principle here is simple. If somebody finds out you provide a service, and then you deny them that service on the basis that they are homosexuals, you might be in violation of the law depending upon where you live. It’s that simple.

Even if you are not in violation of the law by denying provision of that service to them, you may be subject to a shame campaign.

So, my advice is, be very careful. Know your local laws. Act accordingly. And watch out. The environment is predatory to the orthodox Catholic view.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Where are you, Elizabeth502?

Forum Rules oppose forcing people to identify personal details about themselves. It’s actually a Reportable offense.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions that your idea of the legal code applies to me.

Who said anything about “you”? Are you the OP with a different screen name? This is not a conversation about you. I made no statements about how anything applies to you personally, but I do have a fair amount of training in law, which almost became my profession of choice, and I keep up with that law and its complexities.

Realize that this world is big, that people who visit this forum might be doing so from places other than down your street.

I’m not sure why you feel the need to engage in gratuitous condescension. I live in a very legally sophisticated area, actually.

The principle here is simple. If somebody finds out you provide a service, and then you deny them that service on the basis that they are homosexuals, you might be in violation of the law depending upon where you live. It’s that simple.

No that is not the principle (the portion I bolded). The OP did not ask about whether he or she needed to make a public statement about the basis of private inner feelings!
What’s “that simple” is that you failed either to read or that you chose to ignore what I wrote, and instead are representing my position to be completely different from what everyone else can read, here:

Well, if someone is going to be so foolish as to say, “I think you’re gay;” or “I assume you’re gay,” “and therefore I am not going to offer you my services,” then that person frankly lacks a lot of common sense, and may be inviting a confrontation or “issue.” But without such a specific statement on the part of the person refusing to provide services, no lawsuit would have a snowball’s chance in Hell.

The environment is predatory to the orthodox Catholic view.

A statement verging on paranoia, i.m.o. What’s important is to not make obviously prejudicial statements in which one can be charged with discrimination, which is precisely what I said in my previous post. If someone is so stupid as to flaunt, vocally, one’s personal beliefs in a litigious 21st century, when not required to do so, then such a person can expect that he or she may be tempting fate. However, that is not the subject of this thread. The operating question is about private moral decisions, not public statements which have political and/or emotional overtones.

The OP did not ask about public statements. Nor does the Catholic Church demand that the faithful engage in risky political confrontation when making private moral decisions in accord with the teachings of the Church.

It helps when one actually reads the thread.

 

[mystagogia]

This is unbelievable in the extreme. I hope the OP has continued reading this, and seen now how bullying, mean and vindictive someone couched in a little law can smuggly and ungraciously become over the slightest of trivialities.

Never more has this advice been more sound: watch out, know your local law, and watch your back.