Bishop responds to Boy Scouts' decision on admission of homosexual members [CWN]

[gilliam]

Or simply disband the NCCS and create a liaison that covers ALL Catholic boy units using the Baden-Powel method. Or even more expansive, groups like Columbian Squires as well.

The “Baden-Powell” method would accept gay leaders

 

[Brendan]

The “Baden-Powell” method would accept gay leaders

Some would some would not, and this new org, by definition, would represent strictly Catholic troops

Perhaps the acceptance of an org can be determined locally.

.If the local bishop permits the a boy character development organization in his diocese, the religious medals should be offered to the troop\unit\circle\group. That should be enough criteria for anyone.

Would you disagree?

Why should the Ad Altare Dei not be offered to Columbian Squires, for example?

Conversely, if a local bishop felt that an org had deviated to far from Catholic teaching, he could ban the org or prohibit it’s reception of the religious awards.

 

[Cat_Herder]

The term Scouting is trademarked by the BSA; so it would make sense that the NCCS term is also trademarked by the BSA. But the committee is not owned by the BSA.

If it does something the BSA doesn’t like, the BSA can revoke their license to use the trademark and designate everyone in aisle 7 at Walmart as the new NCCS®. Therefore, BSA owns the committee.

The NCCS is an independent group with a liaison to the National Catholic Committee on Scouting and a priest chaplain.

As long as the BSA, who owns the trademark, decides that it is. (You meant a liaison to the USCCB, which is another problem; they aren’t independent of the BSA and so they have no business giving advice on Scouting in general or even on youth development programs in general. That’s like getting general dietary advice from McDonald’s–what do you think they’re going to tell you to eat?).

If bishops wanted to setup a group to assist with your organization, Cat Herder, they can do so and just call it something else.

I don’t have an organization and I’m not trying to start one! I have no connections to any Scouting organization anymore besides being a former BSA UC and an Eagle Scout in my past life. I just want what is best for children and that’s a Scouting organization that is trustworthy–and the BSA is not it.

If you want to learn more about the NCCS go to their website

I know enough about them already. They’ve been falsely representing themselves as independent to the USCCB and the public.

 

[markomalley]

Scouts are Friendly and Helpful. The way I repeated the Scout Promise was a promise to a set of principles, values and laws. Not a promise to a corporation.

Up until the time I was 13 years old, the Scout Promise never had the suffix “… unless I suspect you are gay.” That was in the year 1978. The same year Russ Buffkins, Director of Public Relations of Boy Scouts of America Headquarters wrote his secret memo banning homosexuals from the Boy Scouts of America. This secret memo was codified into policy in 1991 when the Boy Scouts of America Executive Board published the anti-gay policy.

Dave, I want to personally thank you and your comrades for marching, in your uniforms, in the SLC gay pride parade.

I encourage you to have boy scouts march in as many gay pride parades as you can. In fact, I would hope that you send a delegation to the Folsom Street Fair this September.

Why? The more photos, the easier it is to substantiate your political agenda. The more photos, the harder it will be for dioceses to pretend they are ostriches.

So thank you very much for the photos, Dave. Keep it up. Be “loud and proud”. Please.

 

[fix]

Dave, I want to personally thank you and your comrades for marching, in your uniforms, in the SLC gay pride parade.

I encourage you to have boy scouts march in as many gay pride parades as you can. In fact, I would hope that you send a delegation to the Folsom Street Fair this September.

Why? The more photos, the easier it is to substantiate your political agenda. The more photos, the harder it will be for dioceses to pretend they are ostriches.

So thank you very much for the photos, Dave. Keep it up. Be “loud and proud”. Please.

Agenda? What agenda?

 

[gracepoole]

As said before, on the issue of gay rights, Mormons may see same sex marriage as a gateway to polygamy, thus, they can acquiesce but if Mormons are the biggest interest groups, BSA must not be that big to begin with.

Are you claiming here that the Church of LDS would prefer a return to polygamy?

 

[NeedImprovement]

markomalley;10845223:

Dave, I want to personally thank you and your comrades for marching, in your uniforms, in the SLC gay pride parade.

I encourage you to have boy scouts march in as many gay pride parades as you can. In fact, I would hope that you send a delegation to the Folsom Street Fair this September.

Why? The more photos, the easier it is to substantiate your political agenda. The more photos, the harder it will be for dioceses to pretend they are ostriches.

So thank you very much for the photos, Dave. Keep it up. Be “loud and proud”. Please.

Agenda? What agenda ?

How coincidental is it that markomalley mentions photos and fix mentions agenda at this time ?

Given the information provided in the latter part of this thread , I thought we could just try a more politically correct rendering of my commentary on the video to see how it looks (edits in green bolded)

III Scraping Below The Clever Cosmetics

. . . They open with participant commentary from a “former Scout master Dave McGrath “,(who is in uniform too) who said :

“We’re thrilled with what happened last week but discrimination remains”

Here’s the crazy thing -The most important part of my quote didn’t need any editing at all : That would be this part :

III Scraping Below The Clever Cosmetics . . .

“We’re thrilled with what happened last week but discrimination remains”

As it turns out, Dave & Co. were expressly demonstrating against **the ban on gay scout leaders ** the whole time.

Here’s the link : m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/56257911-219/gay-scout-scouts-mcgrath.html.csp

The caption under the large photo says :

(Lennie Mahler | The Salt Lake Tribune) Dave McGrath mounts his cycle in front of the LDS Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah, Sunday, May 5, 2013. Dave and his son, Joe, are riding 1,800 miles from Idaho to the Boy Scouts of America National Meeting in Irving, Texas, to demonstrate against the BSA ban on gay scout leaders.

Point to any of the 6 small clickable photos under the large one (without clicking on them) and a caption will come up. The first part of the caption explains the photo setting , and the second part is identical for each of the 6 photos for each picture.It says Dave is on a mission to “demonstrate against the BSA ban on gay scout leaders” .

I pointed to the 3rd photo from the left and this is what I got (highlights mine):

(Lennie Mahler | The Salt Lake Tribune)

Dave McGrath, his son Joe McGrath and brother Geoff McGrath meet in front of the LDS temple in Salt Lake City Utah to demonstrate against the BSA ban on gay scout leaders.
Dave and Joe McGrath are riding 1800 miles from Idaho to the Boy Scouts meeting in Irving Texas.

The large faith based organizations’ ( LDS , Holy Catholic Church . . . ) stipulated in their statements, regarding the BSA decision ( still revokeable folks) the condition that *the ban on homosexual scoutmasters and scout leaders had to remain intact *for them to even consider it remotely as being compatible.

Dave says , “No ban on homosexual scoutmasters and scout leaders .”

So we do the math .

 

[markomalley]

Agenda? What agenda?

Nevertheless,** increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity**. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.

The Church’s ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church’s position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.

1. The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.

There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.For decades, there has been an ongoing effort to completely normalize homosexual conduct. This 1986 CDF letter that I’ve extracted is a very benign synopsis of those efforts as they were aware of them almost 30 years ago. Frankly, the pressure groups that CDF mentioned have not moderated their views in the intervening 30 years. If anything, they’ve only gotten bolder. And meanwhile, Christians have either compromised in their views or become ostriches.

 

[fix]

Nevertheless,** increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity**. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.

The Church’s ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church’s position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.

1. The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.

There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.For decades, there has been an ongoing effort to completely normalize homosexual conduct. This 1986 CDF letter that I’ve extracted is a very benign synopsis of those efforts as they were aware of them almost 30 years ago. Frankly, the pressure groups that CDF mentioned have not moderated their views in the intervening 30 years. If anything, they’ve only gotten bolder. And meanwhile, Christians have either compromised in their views or become ostriches.

And this document and others from Ratzinger are never addressed by policy change defenders. We get passages from the CCC that are wrongly interpreted by them and when the authentic interpreter of the CCC explains how to apply the teaching the gay advocates say well the inclination is not the issue just the actions and that distinction is used as a cudgel to allow deformation of the BSA and to deform reality too.

 

[NeedImprovement]

@ Dave McGrath :

I don’t need anyone to introduce me to “my gay countrymen” . I deal with them on a daily basis – no conflicts.

It is rather presumptuous to say the least, to think that just because of someone’s faith they don’t have any dealings with homosexuals , or have active homosexuals in their own families , or have some friends or family members who struggle with homosexual tendencies or experience homosexual attraction. So your personal circumstances aren’t any different than anyone else’s – and definitely not a license to go around trampling on other people’s rights and confusing people.

Neither have I ever really agreed with the need to bring personal circumstances to debate. Arguments should be able to stand on their own merits. But you insist on making it a personal issue, while on a larger scale you promote the demise of the family through your version (it would appear) of the gay agenda.

So I can only offer you this one single response in return Dave, ( which you probably won’t find useful ):

Coming from a military family where my father and both my brothers served in the Canadian Armed Forces, and where each one served overseas and in several other hot spots , I can salute you (and Joe) for serving your country. But that’s about as far as it extends.

How, with military training, you try to justify insubordination or allow yourself to be indoctrinated is another story, and perhaps a testimony to just how conniving and clever the homosexual lobby is in waging their psychological warfare.

I read some of your posts again and the article I linked in my previous post , and it just is possible that you’re a guy packing a whole lot of good intentions :yup:– but you’re sorely misguided. :sad_yes:

I believe you may have taken your own personal convictions based on personal experience and tried to knit them together with the homosexual agenda.

I understand you didn’t say this next quote yourself, but you’re very close to the person who did. It’s from the same Salt Lake Tribune article here m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/56257911-219/gay-scout-scouts-mcgrath.html.csp

Try , if you can . at least on this one, to admit the irrational nature of it:

As a soldier in the U.S. Army, I am proud that they no longer discriminate [against gay and lesbian soldiers] and believe that it is high time the Boy Scouts does the same.

Dave , that quote is equating a 10 year-old child with an adult – with a soldier. That is not a rational way of thinking at all – by anyone’s standards. One explanation might be because it is driven by a personal conviction based on personal experience , which prevents it from attaining a status of pure principle.

What you refer to as principles, according to these quotes

. Instead, my obedience is to principles. I am loyal to those principles. . .

. . . We worship at the altar of principle, not policy.

• are actually* values *- not principles, which impose personal preferences. They stem from moral relativism and serve more than not, to debase the concept of individual liberty , thus of citizenship (which incidentally usually isn’t “earned” : the citizenship of one who is native born, is a right which extends to that person, naturally – no “earning” involved).

I don’t get how you can peddle the homosexual agenda without realizing its implications:

According to the practical side (not theory) of gay rights and how society applies them:

• Religious freedom is not a human right and is not compatible with human rights.
• Freedom of conscience is not a fundamental freedom and is not compatible with human rights.
• Parents rights are not a human rights and are not compatible with human rights.
• It is also presumptuous to assert that no one suffering from or susceptible to homosexual tendencies or active homosexuality would like to or be able to break free from it. There are plenty of people who would like to – and your gospel denies them the right to get better.

If you really believe the self-contradictory, incongruous propaganda you’re preaching , then we have to pray for you even more intensely I guess : It obviously suggests you must have swallowed the gay activists’ bait - hook , line and sinker because you’re doing their bidding.

God is not found inside the homosexual theocracy you’re promoting. You aren’t helping people wrap their minds around the homosexual agenda at all – you’re confusing them – just like the gay activists do. They don’t get 'er done - they get 'er undone.

What is tragicaly sad, is that you believe in your own infallibility enough to arbitrarily assume superiority/authority even over other peoples’ parental rights. That also, is highly irrational, and always will be.

I hope one day we all may make it to Heaven, but in the interim, you’ve chosen to join the war on the family – you’re working for the wrong side. So I wish you and all those who are dear to you all the best and success in every endeavor . . . except this one currently being discussed.

I hope and pray that this one fails dismally Dave , for everyone’s own good.

God Bless.

 

[gilliam]

And this document and others from Ratzinger are never addressed by policy change defenders. We get passages from the CCC that are wrongly interpreted by them and when the authentic interpreter of the CCC explains how to apply the teaching the gay advocates say well the inclination is not the issue just the actions and that distinction is used as a cudgel to allow deformation of the BSA and to deform reality too.

Actually it has been addressed a number of times on all the threads on this topic so far. The policy that will go into effect on Jan 1, 2014 doesn’t approve of homosexual activity or lifestyle. The BSA policy is that Scouts don’t have sex, period. Let me quote from the BSA again:
“Any sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting.”

“While, if this resolution is passed, no youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of stating their sexual orientation alone, Scouting expects appropriate behavior from all members, which includes sexual conduct, regardless of sexual orientation.”

scouting.org/sitecore/content/MembershipStandards/Resolution/FAQ.aspx
Sexual activity by a Scout is grounds for review and possible dismissal from the program.

 

[gilliam]

Or simply disband the NCCS and create a liaison that covers ALL Catholic boy units using the Baden-Powel method. Or even more expansive, groups like Columbian Squires as well.

Your real quick at disbanding and reforming organizations that have been around for 100 years. If you want a separate organization, create one.

The Baden-Powell Scout Association in the US is tiny (well, they are tiny everywhere, even in the UK where they were founded)

They accept homosexuals at all levels (something you seem not to want)

They don’t have anywhere close to the infrastructure of the BSA

The reason why they were formed was because they thought the Scout Association UK and the BSA abandoned the Patrol Method, should be coed, should allow everyone to join, including homosexuals, and needed to emphasize camping more

It doesn’t sound like what your looking for except for the fact that it isn’t the BSA

Columbian Squires

The Columbian Squires starts at age 10. So your Cub Scouts are out of luck

They don’t have an advancement program anything like the Trail to Eagle

They don’t have anywhere close to the infrastructure of the BSA they are also a tiny organization

I don’t see where they restrict a person from joining based on their sexual orientation

 

[gilliam]

The Columbian Squires looks like a service organization. Do they camp?

 

[BroomWagon]

Your real quick at disbanding and reforming organizations that have been around for 100 years. If you want a separate organization, create one.

The Baden-Powell Scout Association in the US is tiny (well, they are tiny everywhere, even in the UK where they were founded)

They accept homosexuals at all levels (something you seem not to want)

They don’t have anywhere close to the infrastructure of the BSA

The reason why they were formed was because they thought the Scout Association UK and the BSA abandoned the Patrol Method, should be coed, should allow everyone to join, including homosexuals, and needed to emphasize camping more

It doesn’t sound like what your looking for except for the fact that it isn’t the BSA

Columbian Squires

The Columbian Squires starts at age 10. So your Cub Scouts are out of luck

They don’t have an advancement program anything like the Trail to Eagle

They don’t have anywhere close to the infrastructure of the BSA they are also a tiny organization

I don’t see where they restrict a person from joining based on their sexual orientation

This is all well and good, some people interpret their own values as it being more important to follow Christ than the BSA. That is their own judgement.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Actually it has been addressed a number of times on all the threads on this topic so far.

No it hasn’t. Not once. The CDF document has to do with putting open homosexual youth in teaching (i.e. leadership/mentoring) positions. The CDF has already said not to do this. But the zombies aren’t listening to the Vatican.

 

[Cat_Herder]

The Columbian Squires looks like a service organization. Do they camp?

Yes they do. So does Fraternus, and of course FNE, which is a full-blown Baden-Powell implementation.

 

[Brendan]

Your real quick at disbanding and reforming organizations that have been around for 100 years. If you want a separate organization, create one.

Or join a new CATHOLIC one.

The Baden-Powell Scout Association in the US is tiny (well, they are tiny everywhere, even in the UK where they were founded)

They accept homosexuals at all levels (something you seem not to want)

If you look at my post I referred to the Baden-Powel METHOD, as the type of method outlines in Baden-Powel’s “Scouting for Boys”; not any particular organization. As far as BPSA, I could not care less about them. They are no more of a Catholic org than the BSA

They don’t have anywhere close to the infrastructure of the BSA

‘Infrastrucure’ is not all that important to me or my troop. We rarely use BSA facilities, mostly choosing to camp at CYO, State or Metro parks.

The reason why they were formed was because they thought the Scout Association UK and the BSA abandoned the Patrol Method, should be coed, should allow everyone to join, including homosexuals, and needed to emphasize camping more

See above

It doesn’t sound like what your looking for except for the fact that it isn’t the BSA

I never said I was looking at them.

Columbian Squires

The Columbian Squires starts at age 10. So your Cub Scouts are out of luck

The point that I was making in regards to Columbian Squires is mostly that they, and all other boy development programs should be able to participate in the religious medals programs.

Do you feel that Ad Altarae Dei and such should be restricted to only one program.

They don’t have an advancement program anything like the Trail to Eagle

I have never considered rank advancement to be a goal of Scouting. I’ve always considered character development to be the goal of Scouting. If that has changed, all the more reason to leave.

They don’t have anywhere close to the infrastructure of the BSA they are also a tiny organization

That is one great thing about being mostly a homeschool Pack\Troop, we’re used to not having ‘infrastructure’ and can work well with planning our own.

I don’t see where they restrict a person from joining based on their sexual orientation

If you follow my posts, you might note that I don’t really have a problem with that, I fully accept that homosexual boys can certainly benefit from a B-P style experience ( of any flavor)

What I would like to see out of any organization would be that there be a equivalent separation between homosexual boys and other boys as there are between boys and girls in Venture.

What I am excited to see is that there are either fully Catholic programs or even generically Christian programs in the works.

Those, pretty much by definition, would be superior for character development than a generically religious or secular organization.

 

[gilliam]

No it hasn’t. Not once. The CDF document has to do with putting open homosexual youth in teaching (i.e. leadership/mentoring) positions. The CDF has already said not to do this. But the zombies aren’t listening to the Vatican.

No, the document talks about placing people who participate in homosexual behavior in leadership positions. We are not talking about that since the BSA policy is that Scouts should not be known to be participating in any sexual behavior. If they are, and it becomes known and they do not stop, then it is grounds for removal for both heterosexuals or homosexuals.

So again, the BSA policy is in line with Catholic teaching. We are all called to chastity

 

[gilliam]

Brendan

The NCCS does support others who wish to participate in the Religious Emblems programs.

If you look at my post I referred to the Baden-Powel METHOD, as the type of method outlines in Baden-Powel’s “Scouting for Boys”; not any particular organization.

Which would mean starting a new organization that does not infringe on the BSA copyrights. Good luck with that…

 

[Cat_Herder]

Brendan

The NCCS does support others who wish to participate in the Religious Emblems programs.

No they don’t. You must be a BSA member to get any emblem from them.

Which would mean starting a new organization that does not infringe on the BSA copyrights. Good luck with that…

I guess you are not aware of the many Protestant Scouting organizations unaffiliated with the BSA? Or FNE, which is affiliated with the UIGSE and is therefore worldwide and well-established?

I’ll spare you the boring details about Scouting for Boys being in the public domain, concepts and names not being subject to copyright protection, which names and marks are and are not trademarked, etc. Folks, BSA is not Scouting, it is an implementation of Scouting. Just like Microsoft Windows is not the only operating system, it is an implementation of the concept of an operating system, and if you don’t like it, you can buy a Mac.