Milo Turns a Corner
#31
(03-11-2021, 11:35 AM)SeekerofChrist Wrote:
(03-11-2021, 08:48 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(03-10-2021, 02:26 PM)Bonaventure Wrote:
(03-10-2021, 12:56 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote: No one here knows how much or how little Milo is tempted by anything, including his roommate.

True.  However, public sins call for public repentance.  Part of the issue with his "roommate" is that Milo publicly stated that his "roommate" was his sodomitical partner.  It would therefore seem that still living with this particular "roommate" is not a full public break and/or repentance from his past, and could continue to scandalize others?

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.

Adventus has put it very nicely.  I'd add that even if one assumes they're living chastely, one is doing so knowing that they were formerly engaged in sin with each other.  And if one does make that charitable assumption, then another might assume that they're not.  Thus, an occasion for scandal.  Austenbosten made a good point, though.  Since they're legally married in the eyes of the state, ending that legal relationship could be a complicated matter.  Perhaps they are justified, despite the risk of scandal and sin, to live together chastely.  I'll charitably assume that is the case.  Still, continuing to live with someone that you loved enough to civilly marry is bound to be a major source of temptation.  I'll pray that Milo resists that temptation.  Despite his over-the-top flamboyance, I quickly took a liking to him, when I first heard of him in 2016.

That's not real scandal, though.  That's clutching of pearls.  If one person makes a false assumption based on their own internal gossiping, that's on them.  It can't be on the person or persons that they are making assumptions about.  If that were the case, it would be impossible for us to not be guilty of every other person's sin that's ever made an assumption about us.
Reply
#32
(03-11-2021, 03:15 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(03-11-2021, 11:35 AM)SeekerofChrist Wrote:
(03-11-2021, 08:48 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(03-10-2021, 02:26 PM)Bonaventure Wrote:
(03-10-2021, 12:56 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote: No one here knows how much or how little Milo is tempted by anything, including his roommate.

True.  However, public sins call for public repentance.  Part of the issue with his "roommate" is that Milo publicly stated that his "roommate" was his sodomitical partner.  It would therefore seem that still living with this particular "roommate" is not a full public break and/or repentance from his past, and could continue to scandalize others?

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.

Adventus has put it very nicely.  I'd add that even if one assumes they're living chastely, one is doing so knowing that they were formerly engaged in sin with each other.  And if one does make that charitable assumption, then another might assume that they're not.  Thus, an occasion for scandal.  Austenbosten made a good point, though.  Since they're legally married in the eyes of the state, ending that legal relationship could be a complicated matter.  Perhaps they are justified, despite the risk of scandal and sin, to live together chastely.  I'll charitably assume that is the case.  Still, continuing to live with someone that you loved enough to civilly marry is bound to be a major source of temptation.  I'll pray that Milo resists that temptation.  Despite his over-the-top flamboyance, I quickly took a liking to him, when I first heard of him in 2016.

That's not real scandal, though.  That's clutching of pearls.  If one person makes a false assumption based on their own internal gossiping, that's on them.  It can't be on the person or persons that they are making assumptions about.  If that were the case, it would be impossible for us to not be guilty of every other person's sin that's ever made an assumption about us.

I suppose you're right.  Milo has clearly stated, in public, that he's now "ex-gay" and only living as a roommate with this same-sex partner.  People who assume otherwise have to, without evidence, assume he's lying about that.  That does say more about them than it does him.
"For the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists."
- Pope St. Pius X

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables."
- 2 Timothy 4:3-4

"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
[-] The following 1 user Likes SeekerofChrist's post:
  • Melkite
Reply
#33
(03-11-2021, 01:19 PM)Adventus Wrote:
(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.

Something to consider...we all assumed he was living in open sin prior to this announcement, right?  So had he not made it public that he and his roommate are now living together chastely, or at least trying to, we'd assume his actual situation was worse than it is.  Where there is legitimate scandal here, there would have been greater scandal had he left everyone assuming he was still living his prior life.  So there doesn't seem much point in decrying the potential smaller scandal that now exists, at least not right now.  It comes across as nothing ever being good enough, and the immediate tsk-tsking might just push him to go back into his previous way of living.
Reply
#34
(03-11-2021, 03:12 PM)Melkite Wrote: 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...

I had a younger and childless scenario in mind. Mostly because it's not clear that Milo has severed the relationship in that same manner. I'm sure they talked and perhaps it was amicable.
Reply
#35
(03-11-2021, 03:23 PM)Melkite Wrote: Something to consider...we all assumed he was living in open sin prior to this announcement, right?  So had he not made it public that he and his roommate are now living together chastely, or at least trying to, we'd assume his actual situation was worse than it is.  Where there is legitimate scandal here, there would have been greater scandal had he left everyone assuming he was still living his prior life.  So there doesn't seem much point in decrying the potential smaller scandal that now exists, at least not right now.  It comes across as nothing ever being good enough, and the immediate tsk-tsking might just push him to go back into his previous way of living.

It wasn't an assumption, he was rather public about it before this was announced. But say it wasn't public, all we really knew is he had a boyfriend; why would most people that are assuming the worst, suddenly change their perspective simply because this was public? Would they afford the same assumptions to a heterosexual couple?
Reply
#36
I still don't think it's advisable for Milo and his husband to live together.  Catholics are supposed to avoid occasions of sin.  One can conclude that there is an occasion of sin without assuming that they are engaging in sex.  That's Catholic moral theology, not "pearl clutching" or taking scandal.
[-] The following 2 users Like Evangelium's post:
  • ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident, Filiolus
Reply
#37
(03-11-2021, 05:32 PM)Evangelium Wrote: I still don't think it's advisable for Milo and his husband to live together.  Catholics are supposed to avoid occasions of sin.  One can conclude that there is an occasion of sin without assuming that they are engaging in sex.  That's Catholic moral theology, not "pearl clutching" or taking scandal.

While it probably isn't applicable in Milo's case, there are mitigating circumstances that can make it not feasible.  Perhaps the two have become financially dependent on each other and can't afford to live alone.  I'm sure many trads, considering how quick they are to presume pedophilia on homosexuals, aren't exactly going to open up their home and rent out a bedroom at an affordable price out of their charity to help someone avoid a near occasion of sin.  In Milo's case, there is a child involved, even though it isn't his, and we don't know what kind of dependence the child may have on him.

When financial and domicile issues are involved, it's not always possible to simply extricate oneself from them.
[-] The following 4 users Like Melkite's post:
  • Adventus, HailGilbert, jbean, jovan66102
Reply
#38
One doesn't need to assume anything to acknowledge that it's likely an occasion of sin.

I'm not often surprised at the position the majority takes on FE, and I usually agree. I'm a bit surprised on this one.
Dissolve frigus ligna super foco
large reponens atque benignius
     deprome quadrimum Sabina,
          O Thaliarche, merum diota.

Permitte divis cetera...
[-] The following 2 users Like Filiolus's post:
  • Evangelium, Fortunabeargirl
Reply
#39
(03-11-2021, 07:30 PM)Filiolus Wrote: One doesn't need to assume anything to acknowledge that it's likely an occasion of sin.

I'm not often surprised at the position the majority takes on FE, and I usually agree. I'm a bit surprised on this one.

I don't disagree that it is at high risk to be an occasion of sin for Milo.  I do agree with Melkite and others that this isn't an occasion of scandal for others, though.
"For the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists."
- Pope St. Pius X

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables."
- 2 Timothy 4:3-4

"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
Reply
#40
(03-11-2021, 07:30 PM)Filiolus Wrote: One doesn't need to assume anything to acknowledge that it's likely an occasion of sin.

I'm not often surprised at the position the majority takes on FE, and I usually agree. I'm a bit surprised on this one.
 
It's an occasion of sin if Milo's tempted to sin in the described occasion. You have no idea whether that's the case or not. Only Milo does (and God, of course). And you have no idea what steps, if any, he's taken to mitigate any occasion of sin that might exist for him in the circumstances he's in.
 
As an aside and not to the poster above specifically: people are always assuming that what's an occasion of sin for them is an occasion of sin for everyone else. That's not the case. The gluttonous chocoholic might not be able to contain himself walking by a Russell Stover display that'd be nothing for someone who doesn't like chocolate. Or who used to like chocolate but no longer does. Or likes chocolate, but not the Russell Stover variety. Or who likes chocolate, but is able to resist it easily. Etc.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 2 users Like VoxClamantis's post:
  • jbean, jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)