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

[Sonic]

I am sure if we push these boys who have SSA away from the troop and good role models that they will do just fine with the likes of GLAAD and the school yard bullies

Assuming that any boy that openly identifies as Gay wants to accept them as role models.

 

[zab]

Do they even charter a troop?

Yes, for many years.

 

[Sonic]

Isn’t going to happen. 70% of BSA units are chartered by churches. The BSA is not likely to go in this direction, no matter how many articles people write.

Post made: Today, 6:54 pm

Response made: Today, 7:01 pm

[sign]**Speed Reading

The ability to read and digest the content of
two articles in less than 7 minutes.**[/sign]

 

[Brendan]

I am sure if we push these boys who have SSA away from the troop and good role models that they will do just fine with the likes of GLAAD and the school yard bullies

I generally agree. But I would need to see a similar framework put in place to what the BSA does between Venture Scouts of opposite sex. And in a consistent way, like they do between boy and girl Venture Scouts. Having chartering orgs, or even Councils make that policy would make no more sense than having chartering orgs allow boy\girl co-sleeping arrangements.

But our Troop will also be keeping an eye out to see how the other orgs develop. The BSA does not have an exclusive ‘lock’ on ability to develop boys into virtuous young men.

In general, most other things being equal, a Catholic program would be superior to a generic Christian program. Which is, in turn, superior to a generic Monotheist program, which is likewise superior to a secular program.

Being a Catholic Troop (first and foremost), a Catholic program with some shortcomings would be superior to a generically Monotheist program that is fully established.

My analogy above for service orgs (Kiwanis vs KofC) is a good one for boys programs. I have nothing against the Kiwanis, they do great work and are a great org. I would still prefer my boys grow up to become active Knights. And the reason is simple. it a fully Catholic org.

 

[edwest2]

Related Catholic Answers Blog Post:
To God and My Country: Why We’re Not Quitting Scouts

Thank you. As I read the gay/LGBT press, it’s very clear that those who self-identify as gay/LGBT will continue to work as hard as any evangelical to promote what they believe. As someone who also reads statements made by others of differing orientations, their stated goal includes “educating” the public. What they educate about is not rocket science. It’s not hard to understand.

I hope and pray that God will help the BSA and those involved, but we should, as the scouts are taught, “be prepared.”

Ed

 

[gilliam]

Brendan
It pretty much depends on how your troop wants to operate. Just like a lot of Venturing depends on how your Crew wants to operate.

Until you have an open SSA boy in your troop, you don’t need to address it. And the likelihood of that may be very slim.

I do know that there is a task force that is working on guidelines. They are working within Scouting and also reaching out to other youth organizations who have had similar policies. Remember, we were the only Scouting organization in the Western world, and the only secular youth organization in the United States that had a restriction on the sexual orientation of youth members. There are a lot of people out there in the youth education world with a lot of experience.

 

[wynnejj]

Fr. Lappe’s Response to the New Boy Scouts
starofthesea.net/index.php/our-parish/blog/626-fr-lappes-response-to-new-boy-scouts

Thanks for posting this.

 

[Brendan]

I am sure if we push these boys who have SSA away from the troop and good role models that they will do just fine with the likes of GLAAD and the school yard bullies

The other part of this, is what is the likelihood that these boys will get a GOOD role model, one who will lead them to chastity.

From an LDS troop, without a doubt, same for a LCMS Troop. From a Catholic Troop, the best I can say is most likely, but not certain.

But there are far too many troops that would consider BSA Scouting and GLADD to be complementary in the development of a homosexual youth.
.
So Scouting will be an objectively negative experience for the boy, leading him more towards error than virtue. Sure, he will know his knots, and could cook a mean dutch oven cobbler, but his soul will be in great danger, BECAUSE of the role models he found in Scouting.

 

[Dawnia]

Isn’t going to happen. 70% of BSA units are chartered by churches. The BSA is not likely to go in this direction, no matter how many articles people write.

I wouldn’t count on that. If I were them…

1. Set up pro-gay COs to replace the bailing religious COs
2. Set up pro-gay COs in targeted areas to compete with traditional religious COs for youth and funding.
3. Actively seek out or plant activist youth in religious units in order to spark lawsuits against COs. (Even if they are groundless, a certain number of COs will just bail to avoid the expense)
4. Replace traditional board members with pro-gay board members at the council, regional and national level.
5. Use the media, social media, etc to vilify the BSA for being “discriminatory”, “backwards”, etc for not letting in those fine upstanding Eagle Scouts who were good enough for Scouts when they were kids, but are all of a sudden pariah now that they are adults.
6. I’d push the issue constantly to drive a wedge between members. And point out that it was changed once it will be changed again, making people nauseous and drive out a few more traditional members each time it’s brought up.
7. Then when BSA does another impact “study”, there will be much lower expected loss, because those with objections will already mostly be gone.

(Don’t ask me how I would accomplish all of this. I’m just on the planning committee. )

 

[wynnejj]

I wouldn’t count on that. If I were them…
Don’t ask me how I would accomplish all of this. I’m just on the planning committee. )

Now, Dawnia, you shouldn’t be posting this kind of material. You must learn the lesson of the “Lone Gunman” TV show (spinoff of X-Files) whose pilot show was about stopping a plot to fly a jet airliner into the Twin Towers … before it actually happened.

 

[markomalley]

I fear this as well but at the same time wouldn’t it be unjust discrimination to prevent boys from joining based on sexual orientation alone. Keep in mind that the Catechism says we can’t allow *unjust *discrimination of homosexuals:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357

There are two points to make here.

1. While experiencing same sex attraction is not, in of itself, sinful, the Church has identified it as "objectively disordered."In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
2. There is a nefarious agenda going on behind the scenes. The Church recognizes this agenda and, despite the fact that it is not widely spoken of in American parishes, the agenda has been identified by the Church:8. (snip) `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.

The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society’s understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy.

1. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

**But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. **When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

(both of the above extracts are from the following:) Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons – Homosexualitatis problema (1986)
​

 

[markomalley]

I fear this as well but at the same time wouldn’t it be unjust discrimination to prevent boys from joining based on sexual orientation alone. Keep in mind that the Catechism says we can’t allow *unjust *discrimination of homosexuals:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357

One other thing.

The CDF issued a note in 1992 that goes more specifically into the fallacy of declaring homosexuality a suitable subject for non-discrimination rules. The entire thing is worth reading, but the following is the upshot:“Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern… Including “homosexual orientation” among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices.
This note also clarifies that there are areas where it is not considered “unjust” discrimination to take sexual orientation into account:
11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.
It lists those as examples. Implying that there may be other areas as well.

If you consider the verbiage from the CDF 1986 document I excerpted above, the issue, in my mind, is not so much with the boys themselves…but with their parents and with the pro-homosexual pressure groups that will use those boys’ sad situation to further their political agenda.

Of course, one could ask “why wasn’t this in the Catechism?”

There was a HUGE amount of information that had to be condensed into a single volume for the Catechism. It would have been nice had they included all of the above detail into it, but, sadly, they didn’t.

 

[Dawnia]

Now, Dawnia, you shouldn’t be posting this kind of material. You must learn the lesson of the “Lone Gunman” TV show (spinoff of X-Files) whose pilot show was about stopping a plot to fly a jet airliner into the Twin Towers … before it actually happened.

Unfortunately, the “plan” has been in action for some time already. It’s just not going as fast as they’d like.

 

[wynnejj]

It would seem that the concerns of the NCCS & USCCB per its liaison are less with the impact of openly gay membership, but the placement of them in leadership positions and conflicts related to religious liberty within Catholic troops…

“That’s why I feel it’s imperative for the Church to continue to be involved. And if it gets to the point where some of our basic issues our threatened — such as being able to pick leaders for Catholic chartered groups or in diminishing the role of religion and God — then we will have to re-evaluate our participation in the program at that time.”

It would seem that the show-stopper are these issues, and the other issues that may be less than desirable are probably a mixed blessing … scouts will not be expelled needlessly … versus … generally not helpful to individual’s welfare to publicly self-profess.

 

[quiet52]

Fr. Lappe’s Response to the New Boy Scouts
starofthesea.net/index.php/our-parish/blog/626-fr-lappes-response-to-new-boy-scouts

This pastor is a gem. I wish the USCCB would send every bishop, priest and deacon in the nation a copy of this pastor’s letter, as well as the two documents mentioned in above posts.

Our clergy and other Church leaders need our prayers, that they will speak firmly and truthfully about this and other so-called “gay rights” issues.

Thank you “zab” for posting this.

 

[JMJSHJ]

This pastor is a gem. I wish the USCCB would send every bishop, priest and deacon in the nation a copy of this pastor’s letter, as well as the two documents mentioned in above posts.

Our clergy and other Church leaders need our prayers, that they will speak firmly and truthfully about this and other so-called “gay rights” issues.

Thank you “zab” for posting this.

+1

 

[Lucky7]

I think the good Bishop is a bit confused.

Why should the rest of us be the only ones lately?

To be fair, he did say they weren’t “sinful” which is different than saying it wasn’t disordered. However, yes this will probably be yet another confusing statement to the masses.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Fr. Lappe’s Response to the New Boy Scouts
starofthesea.net/index.php/our-parish/blog/626-fr-lappes-response-to-new-boy-scouts

I like how the CMA’s causes cover almost every boy in America and with a little bit of FUD you can convince virtually every male that it applies to them.

 

[Brendan]

Brendan
It pretty much depends on how your troop wants to operate. Just like a lot of Venturing depends on how your Crew wants to operate.

Until you have an open SSA boy in your troop, you don’t need to address it. And the likelihood of that may be very slim.

But no matter how a Crew wants to operate, there are BSA prohibitions on boys and girls co-tenting. No Crew leader can (legitimately) allow otherwise.

And that is what I would like to see happen with SSAD boys, to have a BSA level prohibition on co-tenting.

That, and that alone, would be consistent with Catholic moral principles. And if the BSA does not do that in regards to SSAD boys, yet keeps a separation policy between boys and girls in Ventures, well, that is just simple hypocrisy.

I do know that there is a task force that is working on guidelines. They are working within Scouting and also reaching out to other youth organizations who have had similar policies. Remember, we were the only Scouting organization in the Western world, and the only secular youth organization in the United States that had a restriction on the sexual orientation of youth members. There are a lot of people out there in the youth education world with a lot of experience.

Unfortunately, having the BSA change over to how Scouting in the rest of the world operates would be a major step backward.

There have been very good reasons why Catholic scouting in Europe has broken away from secular Scouting. It would be a shame for that to have to happen here as well, but that is where we would be heading, especially if proper separation policies were not universally enforced.

As I mentioned in my previous post, an organization being ‘secular’ puts it on the low end of the totem pole, as far as myself or my boys are concerned.

 

[Kathy_Lynch]

I am so happy that Bishop Guglielmone’s (my Bishop) came out with a response to the BSA ruling. Although we were ready to leave Jan 1, it appears we won’t be resigning just yet…but I’m confused by our church’s teachings for me as the parental guardian of my young son’s soul and our church’s decision to remain aligned with a program that clearly now stands up for the introduction of notions and concepts that could cause risk to him on multiple levels.