Milo Turns a Corner
#21
Quote:The situation and nuances matter, but in this case, actively living with someone with whom there is a significant chance of not just you falling into sin but also causing others to fall it if they aren't disciplined to duplicate what you may be doing successfully.


The italicized bit is begging the question. As far as we know, Milo is no longer sexually attracted to his roommate. Or maybe they're roommates with totally different schedules and who rarely see each other. Or maybe the roommate can't afford to live on his own. Or maybe the roommate is sickly and needs care. Or maybe their house is huge, with two different wings, so their "living together" is like living next door in a duplex. Or maybe -- the point is to use the imagination to fill in the blanks with things that assume the best. If the thing in question isn't sinful in se in terms of object, or sinful in terms of the actor's stated or otherwise obvious motives, etc., my take is "honi soit qui mal y pense."

Also, in this case (if I understand things correctly), the roommate has a son for whom Milo has been a parental sort of figure for a few years now.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 3 users Like VoxClamantis's post:
  • Adventus, austenbosten, SeekerofChrist
Reply
#22
This is excellent news. I also hope he finds a good Spiritual Director to overcome the attention-seeking tendencies. That seems to be a big part of homosexuality, viz. effeminacy (not femininity), with very “shocking”, over-the-top attention-seeking behaviour. From the homosexuals I’ve met, they seem to model their behaviours after their own mothers’ weird, shallow personalities. I believe the psychological dynamic would be identification with the aggressor.
Reply
#23
Quote:I also hope he finds a good Spiritual Director to overcome the attention-seeking tendencies.
 

I don't assume his behavior is "attention-seeking" in the way most people use the word (I think, anyway); I just see him as funny and theatrical, and I hope he doesn't lose that about himself. As St. Therese of Lisieux might put it, God's garden has daisies and asters -- and its showy roses and poofy peonies (pardon the pun), and all are good.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#24
(03-11-2021, 11:55 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
Quote:The situation and nuances matter, but in this case, actively living with someone with whom there is a significant chance of not just you falling into sin but also causing others to fall it if they aren't disciplined to duplicate what you may be doing successfully.


The italicized bit is begging the question. As far as we know, Milo is no longer sexually attracted to his roommate. Or maybe they're roommates with totally different schedules and who rarely see each other. Or maybe the roommate can't afford to live on his own. Or maybe the roommate is sickly and needs care. Or maybe their house is huge, with two different wings, so their "living together" is like living next door in a duplex. Or maybe -- the point is to use the imagination to fill in the blanks with things that assume the best. If the thing in question isn't sinful in se in terms of object, or sinful in terms of the actor's stated or otherwise obvious motives, etc., my take is "honi soit qui mal y pense."

Also, in this case (if I understand things correctly), the roommate has a son for whom Milo has been a parental sort of figure for a few years now.

See the bold.

The context was the scandalizing of the other.  For specifics, I would obviously advise talking to a good priest. I do think such a thing should be kept private.
Reply
#25
(03-11-2021, 12:15 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
Quote:I also hope he finds a good Spiritual Director to overcome the attention-seeking tendencies.

I don't assume his behavior is "attention-seeking" in the way most people use the word (I think, anyway); I just see him as funny and theatrical, and I hope he doesn't lose that about himself. As St. Therese of Lisieux might put it, God's garden has daisies and asters -- and its showy roses and poofy peonies (pardon the pun), and all are good.

These tendencies are his job, not a condition.  People who speak and write for a living can't afford not to be in the limelight, at least periodically.
[-] The following 4 users Like ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident's post:
  • dahveed, jbean, jovan66102, VoxClamantis
Reply
#26
(03-11-2021, 12:15 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
Quote:I also hope he finds a good Spiritual Director to overcome the attention-seeking tendencies.
 

I don't assume his behavior is "attention-seeking" in the way most people use the word (I think, anyway); I just see him as funny and theatrical, and I hope he doesn't lose that about himself. As St. Therese of Lisieux might put it, God's garden has daisies and asters -- and its showy roses and poofy peonies (pardon the pun), and all are good.

Actually, it’s pretty rich that I accuse anyone of “attention seeking”. I easily make some of the most idiotic and pointless threads here.
[-] The following 3 users Like FultonFan's post:
  • Blind Horus, ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident, jovan66102
Reply
#27
(03-11-2021, 12:18 PM)Adventus Wrote:
(03-11-2021, 11:55 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
Quote:The situation and nuances matter, but in this case, actively living with someone with whom there is a significant chance of not just you falling into sin but also causing others to fall it if they aren't disciplined to duplicate what you may be doing successfully.


The italicized bit is begging the question. As far as we know, Milo is no longer sexually attracted to his roommate. Or maybe they're roommates with totally different schedules and who rarely see each other. Or maybe the roommate can't afford to live on his own. Or maybe the roommate is sickly and needs care. Or maybe their house is huge, with two different wings, so their "living together" is like living next door in a duplex. Or maybe -- the point is to use the imagination to fill in the blanks with things that assume the best. If the thing in question isn't sinful in se in terms of object, or sinful in terms of the actor's stated or otherwise obvious motives, etc., my take is "honi soit qui mal y pense."

Also, in this case (if I understand things correctly), the roommate has a son for whom Milo has been a parental sort of figure for a few years now.

See the bold.

The context was the scandalizing of the other.  For specifics, I would obviously advise talking to a good priest. I do think such a thing should be kept private.
 
Others wouldn't be "scandalized" (or, as is more common, wouldn't claim to be scandalized) if they assume the best about others (for folks reading over our shoulders, see Fr. Frederick Faber's "On Taking Scandal").

I'm big on keeping the private life private, generally, but one's address is a pretty public thing. And, sometimes, not revealing oneself something that can easily be known leads to gossip, whisper campaigns, etc., that lead others to, again, assume the worst, but this time, multiplied by a thousand.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 2 users Like VoxClamantis's post:
  • jovan66102, Melkite
Reply
#28
Well...all the Bidenettes have their panties in a twist. While they're all busy trying to prove evolution by turning your children into mutants Milo has jumped ship. So now Milo is a Judas, setting a poor example for Gay children everywhere. Poor Milo, between a rock and a hard place.

Makes a guy want to go out to the garden and eat worms...
Oh, where are the snows of yesteryear!
Reply
#29
(03-11-2021, 12:49 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote:  Others wouldn't be "scandalized" (or, as is more common, wouldn't claim to be scandalized) if they assume the best about others (for folks reading over our shoulders, see Fr. Frederick Faber's "On Taking Scandal").

I'm big on keeping the private life private, generally, but one's address is a pretty public thing. And, sometimes, not revealing oneself something that can easily be known leads to gossip, whisper campaigns, etc., that lead others to, again, assume the worst, but this time, multiplied by a thousand.

I'll take a look......thanks.

It goes without saying that we should assume the best about others. But it's also true that there are certain people I can say things that I cannot with others. Not an exact analogy (all of which are not adults)...but...I don't parent thinking all my children will assume the best. In fact, if I did that, there is a good chance it will be interpreted in a way that is not healthy; even if no gossiping takes place. It's important to take into consideration what good one may achieve by airing these sorts of things and if indirect scandal is highly possible. I don't think it's a stretch to say that with this particular topic, it's highly likely people may take it in an unhealthy manner.
Reply
#30
(03-11-2021, 11:14 AM)Adventus Wrote:
(03-11-2021, 08:48 AM)Melkite Wrote: Who's it going to scandalize?  All the gays he just alienated by identifying as ex-gay?  All the straight married guys who have secretly wanted a live-in bunk buddy all their lives?  If they're able to live together chastely, there is no scandal.

I have to imagine that if it was a male and female living together, most sound priests would advise against it. This, even knowing that these two were intending on living chastely. It does indirectly scandalize; even though it is not the intention to cause another to fall into sin. Understanding that one must not leave such a statement broad either; because one can apply this to numerous situations. The situation and nuances matter, but in this case, actively living with someone with whom there is a significant chance of not just you falling into sin but also causing others to fall it if they aren't disciplined to duplicate what you may be doing successfully. It ultimately can put many people in a near occasion of sin scenario. Particularly with matters of sexuality, the pull is immensely strong. Not a good idea.

I have more sympathy towards heterosexual couples in this kind of situation, since in that case, children may be involved.  Depending on their age, it could be traumatic for them to have their parents separate and move into different homes just because they aren't in a valid marriage.  But as Austen mentioned, the Church doesn't require heterosexual couples to move into different homes - only that they live together as brother and sister if they are going to remain in the same home.  It may frequently be a good idea for such couples to live separately, but it isn't absolutely required.  Same with homosexual couples.  It may more frequently be likely that there is a need to move apart than would be with heterosexual couples, and there aren't as many circumstances, presumably, that would make it difficult for them to separate (financial issues could be a big one).  But it still isn't absolutely required.  If chastity is maintained, then there is no scandal.  Clutching of pearls, on the other hand...
[-] The following 3 users Like Melkite's post:
  • Adventus, jbean, jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)