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

[shocktrooper]

I do not consider this “absolutely factual.” I find both “absolute” and “factual” used here not as absolutes or fact but as your opinion, or your observation. I do not believe in homosexuality among children as something which is real, but rather something which is taught culturally. The parents may have an agenda, but children do not as a rule have an agenda except pleasing parents.

They are strong words for sure but that does not mean they are not true. I also believe homosexuality among children is more cultural rather then “real” but that is irrelevant. Children are going to be used as pawns in this game and the fact that the policy has been changed only solidifies this fact and makes it even more so for the future. By allowing them to “come out” only makes them more of a pawn. This will damage the ones that we desire to sympathize with and evangelize. The old policy was the right policy.

No? Are there going to cease and be children in need if the Church withdraws? If people of faith do not speak to the Scouts that choose to remain and teach them the light of Christ, then who will? I think there are a lot of children that could be harmed by the withdrawal of this light. Were it impossible to stay true to Catholic doctrine, then I would agree with you. The Church does not believe the current policy mandates that they compromise principles. Even the SBC believe the current BSA policy allows a strong stance against homosexuality.

So the BSA is the end all be all? I guess the buck stops with them then. No other scouting organization can do what they do.

Would you rather send your children to a Catholic scouting organization that pledges their allegiance to the Catholic Church and her teachings or to a secular organization that skirts the line and is beholden to corporate sponsors and other faiths that run contrary to the Church in one way or another? As a faithful Catholic, which would be the safest move for the soul of your child?

 

[pnewton]

The old policy was the right policy.

I totally agree that the old policy was the best policy.

So the BSA is the end all be all? I guess the buck stops with them then. No other scouting organization can do what they do.

It stops with the BSA for those that are in the BSA. In my case, there are no other organizations. Boy Scouts are the only Catholic scouting groups here.

Would you rather send your children to a Catholic scouting… As a faithful Catholic, which would be the safest move for the soul of your child?

That is a good question and one every parent must answer. In my case, I am safe within the Boy Scouts. I would be more concerned about a new start up group. I would not hold this opinion for anyone else’s child though. I can only speak for my own situation.

 

[gilliam]

I have posted this link before. He sums it up well.

And another one here.

I think the issue here is that ever since the late 1990s a certain segment of the conservative political wing in the United States came to think that the BSA was a political advocacy group belonging to their wing in the social war. Well the Boy Scouts may have encouraged that thinking for any number of reasons, but we were never intended to be that. That is not the mission of the Scouts, never really was.

Now that we are disentangling ourselves form this embrace, those same forces have started attacking us.

 

[shocktrooper]

You are blatantly misrepresenting the CDF’s statements:

I don’t believe I am.

The CDF recognizes that not every out homosexual is out to promote the homosexualist agenda. Why can you not?

I did not say they did.

The CDF never stated that the primary reason is that they are seeking affirmation. The CDF stated that a common reason is that they are seeking affirmation.

I chose to use “primary reason” and “seeking affirmation”. The CDF doc says “the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation”. This means that there is a minority that does publicize their sexual orientation for other reasons.

And then the CDF says…“Homosexual persons who assert their homosexuality tend to be precisely those who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be “either completely harmless, if not an entirely good thing” (cf. no. 3), and hence worthy of public approval”.

According to online dictionaries, “tend” means…

Definition of TEND
1: to move, direct, or develop one’s course in a particular direction
2: to exhibit an inclination or tendency : conduce

If those that “come out” “tend” to be precisely those who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be harmless or good, then it is clear they would be seeking affirmation if they had no plans on being chaste. This would then logically lead one to conclude that the majority of those that “come out” tend to be advocates for the homosexual lifestyle.

Children may not be willful participants but they are surely pawns. It is sad and we should not have endorsed this behavior by changing the policy.

 

[shocktrooper]

I totally agree that the old policy was the best policy.
It stops with the BSA for those that are in the BSA. In my case, there are no other organizations. Boy Scouts are the only Catholic scouting groups here.
That is a good question and one every parent must answer. In my case, I am safe within the Boy Scouts. I would be more concerned about a new start up group. I would not hold this opinion for anyone else’s child though. I can only speak for my own situation.

Does the BSA in general, corporate, profit in anyway from your troop? If yes, does this concern you?

 

[Baelor]

I don’t believe I am.

We shall see.

I did not say they did.

Yes, you did:

You:

You still have not addressed my question about those that want to “come out” as having SSA being the same people that accept the lifestyle and want it normalized. This is absolutely factual and seems to not be considered by you.

The CDF did not make this claim; it is not factual.

You also said it here:

shocktrooper:

I agree that there can be other reasons for “coming out” but as the CDF states, the primary reason is because they are seeking affirmation.

The CDF never claimed this either.

I chose to use “primary reason” and “seeking affirmation”. The CDF doc says “the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation”. This means that there is a minority that does publicize their sexual orientation for other reasons.

Exactly. Which means “primary reason” is fallacious; “primary” involves primacy in personal decision-making.

If those that “come out” “tend” to be precisely those who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be harmless or good, then it is clear they would be seeking affirmation if they had no plans on being chaste. This would then logically lead one to conclude that the majority of those that “come out” tend to be advocates for the homosexual lifestyle.

No one claimed otherwise. The fact that you recognize that you spoke misleadingly (at best) about the CDF’s policy indicates that you also recognize the absurdity of your own question about why those who come out do so.

 

[shocktrooper]

Originally Posted by You
You still have not addressed my question about those that want to “come out” as having SSA being the same people that accept the lifestyle and want it normalized. This is absolutely factual and seems to not be considered by you.

The CDF did not make this claim; it is not factual.

I did not say the CDF said it was factual. I said…those that want to “come out” are the same people that accept the lifestyle. I did not directly quote them but they do say that the majority of those that stay silent do so because they have chosen to remain chaste. You can pick at my words all you want looking for some leverage, but the CDF document stands as it is without my interpretation.

Exactly. Which means “primary reason” is fallacious; “primary” involves primacy in personal decision-making.

I already admitted to pnewton those words were strong. I could have shared my thoughts better or not attributed them to the document.

No one claimed otherwise. The fact that you recognize that you spoke misleadingly (at best) about the CDF’s policy indicates that you also recognize the absurdity of your own question about why those who come out do so.

The wording I used about the CDF document does not have any impact on my question and the obvious answer to why the majority of homosexuals announce their disorder. Whether the CDF document says it or not, common sense says they are seeking affirmation and acceptance, not conversion.

You got me Baelor. You caught me attributing to a CDF document what one should logically be able to conclude with common sense.

 

[dcs]

One of the things that has affected the scouting movement in Europe is a desire on the part of some to get closer to the original program of Lord Baden-Powell’s. This happened in France in 1956 (with the foundation of the Scouts d’Europe – who, of course, had other aims as well, such as the unity of Europe) and again in 1971 (with the foundation of the Unitary Scouts of France). I’m reminded of how in religious orders there are reform movements in order to bring them back to the original charism received from the Founder (of course, scouting is just a poor echo of this, I apologize if the analogy offends).

Now this never happened in the United States, or, if it has, at least not on the scale that is has in Europe. I don’t want to speculate as to why (it’s not my place), but couldn’t it be that for some the recent changes made by the BSA are just the last straw?

 

[Baelor]

I did not say the CDF said it was factual.

You said that the CDF said it and that it was factual. Neither of those things is accurate.

I said…those that want to “come out” are the same people that accept the lifestyle.

Which is neither true nor what the CDF said.

I did not directly quote them but they do say that the majority of those that stay silent do so because they have chosen to remain chaste.

Majority and every are different.

You can pick at my words all you want looking for some leverage, but the CDF document stands as it is without my interpretation.

It is a good thing that it does not require your interpretation. I am not attempting to seek leverage; I am attempting to represent both the CDF and moral reality fairly.

The wording I used about the CDF document does not have any impact on my question and the obvious answer to why the majority of homosexuals announce their disorder.

There was a poster in this very thread (in the last five pages or so) who is out and gay and have explained his reasons. Why would you then ask what possible reason a gay could have for coming out? The answer is literally on the screen in front of you. Google the question if you want. Or exercise your mind and put yourself in the shoes of a gay and faithful Catholic.

Whether the CDF document says it or not, common sense says they are seeking affirmation and acceptance, not conversion.

The CDF does not say that “they” are seeking anything. The CDF says that many homosexuals come out and that many of these affirm the lifestyle.

The issue is not with your syllogism that includes these premises and concludes with the idea that coming out is a way to seek affirmation and acceptance. It is with your representation of “many” as “all.” Your collapse of a sub-population of gays is very problematic.

 

[FAB]

Before the gay propagandists forced the policy change was that policy contrary to the faith? Which Bishops said it was unjust?

The scout policiy applies to children, who are looking for their identity. Jesus said let the children come to me. We are called to love these children, to guide them and yes to accept them.

The bishop’s policy as I previously stated applies to adults who are gay and the issues of placing children with such persons.

Even with the adult, we are still called by Christ to love them as he does.

There is actually nothing to this policy that is contrary to the faith. The scouts are accepting a boy into the organization, just like any other, to teach them and to guide them. The Church teaching is the same.

Deacon Frank

 

[FAB]

I am interested in hearing your definition of “take care of”. It seems that one would want to take care not to embolden or confirm a person that is oriented toward sin.

You are assuming that homosexulity is a choice. The Catichism recognizes that it may not be. The choice is acting upon those tendency.
The heterosexual is just as sinfull for acting upon thier impulses and notreserving sexual intercourse in the context of a marriage, having multiple partners. The sin of an adulturer is just as grave. They make thier decission to sin just like the homosexual. Because such people are not excluded from the church are thier actions being confirmed and embolden?
I think not, neither are they in this case.

Deacon Frank

 

[fix]

I think the issue here is that ever since the late 1990s a certain segment of the conservative political wing in the United States came to think that the BSA was a political advocacy group belonging to their wing in the social war. Well the Boy Scouts may have encouraged that thinking for any number of reasons, but we were never intended to be that. That is not the mission of the Scouts, never really was.

Now that we are disentangling ourselves form this embrace, those same forces have started attacking us.

The BSA won a Supreme Court ruling. They said they would not change the policy. They did change for no good reason. What we have is the gay lobby forcing their ideology on the BSA. The old policy was correct and morally good.

 

[fix]

The scout policiy applies to children, who are looking for their identity. Jesus said let the children come to me. We are called to love these children, to guide them and yes to accept them.

The bishop’s policy as I previously stated applies to adults who are gay and the issues of placing children with such persons.

Even with the adult, we are still called by Christ to love them as he does.

There is actually nothing to this policy that is contrary to the faith. The scouts are accepting a boy into the organization, just like any other, to teach them and to guide them. The Church teaching is the same.

Deacon Frank

Again, my specific question is which bishops said the policy was unjust?

 

[fix]

You are assuming that homosexulity is a choice. The Catichism recognizes that it may not be. The choice is acting upon those tendency.
The heterosexual is just as sinfull for acting upon thier impulses and notreserving sexual intercourse in the context of a marriage, having multiple partners. The sin of an adulturer is just as grave. They make thier decission to sin just like the homosexual. Because such people are not excluded from the church are thier actions being confirmed and embolden?
I think not, neither are they in this case.

Deacon Frank

Not to go off the rails but st Thomas does not agree with you here. Where does the Church teach every violation of the sixth commandment is of the exact same gravity?

 

[Cat_Herder]

No one is supporting me.

George Soros may not be buying you an extravagant caviar dinner on the Catholics United tab, but you are embracing their position and using their tactics. You picked up that position and those tactics from somewhere and that somewhere is no doubt traceable to CU’s pervasive lobby. Do you want me to prove that? Here we go:

CatHerder (and those who agree with him/her),

PROVE IT. Show me one document that specifically bans persons with SSA from receiving services from any Church-sponsored group or ministry.

I’m waiting.

Tactic No. 1 used by CU and their supporters is to misrepresent and personally attack anyone who dares to challenge their agenda. Catholics United and the Washington Post did that to Fr. Derek Lappe, and you’re doing it to me here.

I have NEVER, never, ever, said that persons with same-sex attraction should be banned from receiving any service or ministry from any Church-sponsored group. What I have said is someone who is openly promoting SSA as normal and not disordered should be so banned from the BSA for the reasons stated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. So for applying a Vatican statement, I get crucified alongside Fr. Lappe.

Want to see more CU tactics? Here we go:

I understand the reaction to the change in the BSA policy. I totally understand anyone that wants to change to another organization, but then I always thought such decisions should be rejected. What I do not understand is why such people feel the need to convert others to their opinion by tactics I can only think of as bullying;

It’s a very common CU canard to accuse people of “bullying.” You can see the term “bullying” wrongly applied to Fr. Lappe in the linked Catholic World Report article. And here you’re applying it to me.

I think the moderator said it best (excerpted):

MODERATOR REMINDER

Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. …
Agenda posting is not allowed.
…

You may not make disparaging remarks about:

…

• Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
  …
• Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack,insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
• Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.
  …

Avoid arguments that will lead to violations of charity. You don’t have to like what you read and others do not have to like what you post. But you must be civil toward each other and those who are not on the forum.

So if you want to carry on this discussion, let’s discuss the ISSUES and the EVIDENCE. No straw men and no name calling.

 

[shocktrooper]

You said that the CDF said it and that it was factual. Neither of those things is accurate.

I did not dispute this. However, I did not say the CDF said it was factual.

Which is neither true nor what the CDF said.

Majority and every are different.

I never once use the work “every” nor did I say the CDF did.

There was a poster in this very thread (in the last five pages or so) who is out and gay and have explained his reasons. Why would you then ask what possible reason a gay could have for coming out? The answer is literally on the screen in front of you. Google the question if you want. Or exercise your mind and put yourself in the shoes of a gay and faithful Catholic.

I never once said there were no other reasons for coming out.

The CDF does not say that “they” are seeking anything. The CDF says that many homosexuals come out and that many of these affirm the lifestyle.

If they affirm the lifestyle and are self identified homosexuals, then those that “come out” will be seeking affirmation. I never used the word “all” or “every”.

It is with your representation of “many” as “all.” Your collapse of a sub-population of gays is very problematic.

I did not do this. You are reading too much into my comments. If I did, please reference the post #.

 

[shocktrooper]

You are assuming that homosexulity is a choice. The Catichism recognizes that it may not be. The choice is acting upon those tendency.
The heterosexual is just as sinfull for acting upon thier impulses and notreserving sexual intercourse in the context of a marriage, having multiple partners. The sin of an adulturer is just as grave. They make thier decission to sin just like the homosexual.

I am more than comfortable with the idea that homosexuality is a choice and the idea that one may be born with this cross. I have never advocated that people with any sin be barred from the Church. However, I think we would both agree that we are called to holiness and not remain in our sinful ways.

Because such people are not excluded from the church are thier actions being confirmed and embolden? I think not, neither are they in this case.

The Church and the BSA have different roles and different motives. The Church’s mission is to save souls via Christ alone, so the infirmed are welcomed and exhorted to repent. The BSA is a secular institution that has important goals but it is not designed to lead boys to God via Christ. They are agnostic in this area, so their rules need to be pleasing to all, which breaks down into relativism.

The Church has a firm teaching on scandal. The modern crowd, as with morality, has basically done away with any concept of scandal. Scandalous behavior can make one culpable in another’s sin if the cause of that sin or helping it along. If a woman purposely walks around in immodest clothing, then she is culpable in the sin a man commits by masturbating, whether she knows he did it or not.

It is my understanding that the majority of the boys in BSA are at or above the age of reason, which is 7 in the U.S. This means that those boys, minus some exceptions of course, have now moved out the state of innocence. These boys should be safeguarded from all evil that may lurk, whether it is seen or not. Their souls are literally up for grabs.

The changing of this policy in and of itself is scandalous and was designed to be. There was zero reason to change it. The only purpose the change served was to make the Church irrelevant in the eyes of the world and to appease corporate sponsors.

 

[Baelor]

I did not dispute this. However, I did not say the CDF said it was factual.

I do not remember claiming you did. I agree that you did not say this.

I never once use the work “every” nor did I say the CDF did.

Actually, you did. I already posted two statements in which you made an equivocation without mention or room for exceptions; the fact that “every” was not explicit does not change the fact that “every” is inherent in the statement. “Men are humans” does not leave room for exceptions. Similarly, one should find fault with the statement “Humans are men.” Although “every” is not included, nevertheless the absence of any mention of exception has the same effect.

I never once said there were no other reasons for coming out.

Then there is no need to ask a question to which you already know the answer.

If they affirm the lifestyle and are self identified homosexuals, then those that “come out” will be seeking affirmation. I never used the word “all” or “every”.

See above. “If” is “if.” You acknowledge, then, that there are homosexuals who come out who are in line with Catholic teaching. That is all I wanted to make clear anyway.

I did not do this. You are reading too much into my comments. If I did, please reference the post #.

I did in previous posts, e.g. two or three posts ago.

 

[buffalo]

In a word, plumbing. I do not accept gender as a wishy-washy concept determined by popular opinion. Separation in bathroom facilities needs an objective base.

Eenie meanie minie mo in which bathroom do I go? How do I feel today?

 

[Tigg]

Catholic intellectuals can speculate on all sorts of things. Bishops have a different calling, they are responsible for taking care of the flock. It is fun to read the intellectuals, but don’t get distracted, take your advice about what is or is not Catholic faith and moral teaching in this matter from those commissioned to care for you. In this case, the bishops.

How many individual bishops have spoken on this? I know ours hasn’t. It must be a matter of prudential judgment since we see comments like this:

“It is highly disappointing to see the Boy Scouts of America succumb to external pressures and political causes at the cost of its moral integrity. Additionally, it seems clear that the result of this policy change will likely not bring harmony, but rather continuing controversy, policy fights, and discord.”

Bishop Paul Loverde - Arlington