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

[pnewton]

The entire line of reasoning includes denial and disregards common sense in an attempt to allow what should not be allowed.

But it has been allowed. The question is what to do now. The bishop in charge said we continue and do not abandon the BSA. Loosing a battle does not have to necessitate surrender.

 

[Brendan]

I guess my point is that homosexual boys are showering with straight boys now. If we were truly concerned about it, showers and changing facilities would already be strictly private.

The point is, they are doing so in a way that is unknown to the other boys. This is very much akin to the ‘peeking into the girls shower’.

If a girl was looked at without her knowledge, it is still a violation of modesty. Likewise with homosexual boys currently in the shower.

Because it is happening does not mean that we, and all youth organizations, should not take steps to prevent it from happening, especially where there is knowledge by the adult leadership that could prevent it.

 

[fix]

But it has been allowed. The question is what to do now. The bishop in charge said we continue and do not abandon the BSA. Loosing a battle does not have to necessitate surrender.

I have not said I disagree with that. What I am doing is pointing out the reasoning, or lack of reasoning, that is used to justify things.

If people want to stay and support it that is fine. I just want to show that going along to get along is not the moral ideal and that we ought to think critically and not a accept common arguments that are not based in truth.

 

[pnewton]

I have not said I disagree with that. What I am doing is pointing out the reasoning, or lack of reasoning, that is used to justify things.

If people want to stay and support it that is fine. I just want to show that going along to get along is not the moral ideal and that we ought to think critically and not a accept common arguments that are not based in truth.

Sorry. It does bring up an interesting point. If one is going to stay, then all the more reason one needs to be grounded in truth. I think the worse an organization is, the more one needs fortitude and grace. But heck, if the enemy can pull this stunt in traditionally moral organizations, surely the grace we have available will sustain us.

 

[on_the_hill]

Because it is happening does not mean that we, and all youth organizations, should not take steps to prevent it from happening, especially where there is knowledge by the adult leadership that could prevent it.

I agree 100 percent.

Just because it may be happening now doesn’t mean it’s o.k.

Of course, knowing who is gay and who isn’t relies on whether or not the boy “comes out.” If I were a gay teenager there’s no way I would ever in a million years tell anyone.

 

[Brendan]

But it has been allowed. The question is what to do now. The bishop in charge said we continue and do not abandon the BSA. Loosing a battle does not have to necessitate surrender.

More specifically, he stated that the Church must remain engaged with the BSA, "We have a real obligation to stay in dialogue and to stay connected to the program.”

Which is not necessarily what you stated.

As an example, the bishops noted that we needed to remain engaged with the GSUSA, but that has not been viewed by the Bishops as a mandate that AHG troops could not be created in their dioceses, as most have done so.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Yes, I run a Scout troop. I know how much tents cost. But that would be the price to pay to do what the bishops ask of Scouting, to be a virtuous program.

I understand that. But there are valid reasons why the adults do not shower with the boys, nor the boys with the girls. And those same reasons apply to homosexual boys showering with other boys.

Send your plans to your local BSA camp. This are the things that would need to be in place before I consider bringing boys to camp in light of Catholic morality.

But I was referring to the showers, and so were you when you made that ‘nothing new to see’ comment.

The virtue of modesty does not depend on there being actual sexual attraction between the parties. I, as an adult male, would be in the wrong to attempt to shower with girls from my daughters AHG troop, though there would be zero sexual attraction. But it would still remain a gregarious violation of modesty, would it not

I never claimed that it was a mental disorder, only that it was a disorder. So my statement is perfectly correct. Same Sex Attraction is a disorder. That is something no Catholic should deny.

Have the bishops said that the showering and bathrooms must be separate or even recommended it? If so I must have missed it.

Adults are not their peers, by nature of being adults as opposed to youth in the program they are already separate.

My camp already has shower partitions, and only a cabin for the medical facility.

There’s still a difference between using the same facilities and voyeurism.

That would be indecent exposure. The word is egregious not gregarious

It is morally disordered, but to write it the same way that mental disorders are written is questionable.

Then co ed showers should be fine. The idea that sexual attraction plays no role is absurd. Are you a parent? I would like to see how many parents favor co- ed showers.

Co ed showers are perfectly workable for adults, it works just fine at many universities, kids are too often too immature.

Parents aren’t always right.

As I said in another post the logic used is like the abortion logic. It is a baby when wanted and not a baby when not wanted. The gay apologists tell us when same sex attraction matters and when it does not matter. It is a double standard and self serving.

Who in this thread is saying sexual attraction matters in some cases and in some cases it doesn’t?

The point is, they are doing so in a way that is unknown to the other boys. This is very much akin to the ‘peeking into the girls shower’.

If a girl was looked at without her knowledge, it is still a violation of modesty. Likewise with homosexual boys currently in the shower.

Because it is happening does not mean that we, and all youth organizations, should not take steps to prevent it from happening, especially where there is knowledge by the adult leadership that could prevent it.

There is a large difference between using the same facilities as someone else and voyeurism.

 

[Momofmyangels]

Parents aren’t always right.

So, when a parent attempts to maintain modesty for their child, they are not right?

 

[Dawnia]

Solution to group shower problem - Make them wear swim trunks. They get clean, their trunks get clean and nobody’s little bits are exposed.

 

[on_the_hill]

So, when a parent attempts to maintain modesty for their child, they are not right?

There’s modesty, and there’s shame. I think there can be a slim margin between the two. Modesty is good. Being fearful, especially about one’s body, can lead to problems.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

So, when a parent attempts to maintain modesty for their child, they are not right?

Some parents think that their daughter must wear an ankle length skirt or that their daughter is dressing like a harlot.

Solution to group shower problem - Make them wear swim trunks. They get clean, their trunks get clean and nobody’s little bits are exposed.

Thay works for swimming and baths, but not showers

 

[on_the_hill]

It’s like the whole dichotomous presentation of adults as leaders and adults as predators.

On the one hand, the boys are taught in Cub Scouts to follow Akela. Akela is the leader, Akela will teach them and keep them safe.

On the other hand, when it comes to restrooms, showers, changing rooms, tents, etc., Akela suddenly becomes a potential threat, someone to be wary of. Don’t be caught alone with Akela or else…

But that’s a whole 'nother ball of wax.

 

[on_the_hill]

Some parents think that their daughter must wear an ankle length skirt or that their daughter is dressing like a harlot.

Thay works for swimming and baths, but not showers

There are guys at my gym who wear their shorts into the shower stalls then get dressed again before they leave the stalls. Mostly this is the younger guys.

By the time a man reaches his mid-to-late-70s, he couldn’t care less about it. Old men will stand and carry on a conversation with each other, completely naked. But, it’s also a different generation.

 

[Dawnia]

Some parents think that their daughter must wear an ankle length skirt or that their daughter is dressing like a harlot.

Thay works for swimming and baths, but not showers

It works just fine for showers. Swim trunks aren’t impervious to soap or water.

 

[NeedImprovement]

NeedImprovement;10803846:

. . . Just something we may wish to keep in mind while dealing with the deceptively subtle sophistry of the homosexual lobby / gay activists :

Of these three linked articles . . .

• The OP - Bishop responds to Boy Scouts’ decision on admission of homosexual members

• To God and My Country: Why We’re Not Quitting Scouts
• Fr. Lappe’s Response to New Boy Scouts

. . . none of them use the terminology “sexual orientation.” Any good Catholic or Christian would do well to avoid using it too.

Even if one does not have enough time to read Dr. Scott Lively’s entire, precise and thorough exposé DECIPHERING ‘GAY’ WORD-SPEAK AND LANGUAGE OF CONFUSION , if we really wish to begin to have an idea of the demon we’re dealing with, it would be highly beneficial to click the link and scroll about one third of the way down the page to the subtitled section, “Sexual Orientation” .

It illustrates exactly what we are conceding (even unwittingly) the moment we accept to use the term “sexual orientation” anywhere where the truth is desired.

Several excerpts from the pertinent section :
. . . Has anyone ever explained to that writer that a phrase can mean more than the sum of it’s parts or something different?

Not any phrase, the term is **sexual orientation **- that’s the term we’re referring to explicitly in this instance.

The excerpt was meant to make that point clearly:

DECIPHERING ‘GAY’ WORD-SPEAK AND LANGUAGE OF CONFUSION

**Sexual Orientation **

“Sexual orientation” is a highly ambiguous term loaded with hidden false assumptions.

An “orientation” describes the perspective of a subject toward an object. A sexual orientation therefore describes a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted: a homosexual is someone oriented toward someone of the same sex, a bisexual toward both sexes, a pedophile toward children, a sado-masochist toward giving or receiving pain, etc…

By definition, there are an unlimited number of potential sexual orientations. The “gay” movement, however, arbitrarily recognizes only four orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered (i.e. transvestites and transsexuals). Why? Because to recognize other orientations – pedophilia, for example – would draw attention to the importance of distinguishing between orientation and conduct, when a major purpose of sexual orientation theory is to legitimize and protect homosexual conduct by obscuring this distinction.

This is most clearly seen in anti-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation. Government and corporate policy makers include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination policies in order to protect freedom of thought and speech on the basis of the claim that sexual orientation is nothing more than a state of mind. Americans rightfully cherish the First Amendment right to think and speak freely. The practical effect of such policies, however, is to legitimize and protect any sexual conduct associated with an orientation. For example, under such policies a landlord is expected to rent to homosexuals even if they admit they intend to commit sodomy on the property and this is his sole reason for wanting to deny their application.

. . . In summary, sexual orientation is a term that is used by “gay” activists to deceive both policy makers and the public about the nature of homosexuality. It frames the debate about homosexuality in such a way that the average person is tricked into accepting “gay” presuppositions without challenge. This is even true of those people who continue to oppose the homosexuals’ political goals. Once the presuppositions have been accepted, especially when they become “law” in anti-discrimination policies, resistance to rest of the “gay” agenda becomes much more difficult. The only effective strategy is to reject and refute the false assumptions of sexual orientation and re-frame the issues on a truthful foundation. Sexual orientation must be exposed for what it is: a nonsensical theory about sexuality invented by “gay” political strategists to serve their own selfish interests at the expense of the welfare of society as a whole.

DECIPHERING GAY WORDSPEAK AND LANGUAGE OF CONFUSION, Dr, Scott Lively

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . Has anyone ever explained to that writer that a phrase can mean more than the sum of it’s parts or something different?

Not only that “writer”, but as I’d posted as examples, the other three “writers” of the linked articles

• The OP - Bishop responds to Boy Scouts’ decision on admission of homosexual members
• To God and My Country: Why We’re Not Quitting Scouts
• Fr. Lappe’s Response to New Boy Scouts

. . . none of them use the highly ambiguous term ** “sexual orientation.”** But BSA walked right into that trap.

Anyone who bothered to read Dr. Lively’s entire article DECIPHERING GAY WORDSPEAK AND LANGUAGE OF CONFUSION would discover that his credits are listed at the bottom of the article:

Scott Lively is uniquely qualified to speak in the defense of the natural family and against homosexuality. A graduate (magna cum laude) of Trinity Law School in Santa Ana, California, Scott Lively holds the degree of Juris Doctor, with special emphasis in Human Rights, as well as a certificate in Human Rights from the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. Now a licensed attorney, Scott is Founder and President of Abiding Truth Ministries and Director of ATM’s Pro-Family Law Center. The Pro-Family Law Center is the nation’s only legal organization devoted exclusively to opposing the homosexual political agenda. In the summer of 2001, Scott became State Director of the American Family Association of California . . .

. . . it’s all there for whoever knows how to read it.

Not being a mind-reader, I’m not sure how I am supposed to know whether “ anyone” has “ ever explained to that writer that a phrase can mean more than the sum of it’s parts or something different?”
Just like I don’t always know whether posts might sometimes support an ulterior motive.

He has the credentials to speak on this matter , and if I had to guess, I would say that being an attorney, he would have more than a fair assessment of those areas where a phrase can even intentionally mean something different due to ulterior motives.

Furthermore in exposing to us that

**sexual orientation ** is a term that is used by “gay” activists to deceive both policy makers and the public about the nature of homosexuality. It frames the debate about homosexuality in such a way that the average person is tricked into accepting “gay” presuppositions without challenge. . .

. . . I believe he certainly proves beyond a doubt that

. . . a phrase can mean . . . something different?

In this case, Dr. Lively amply demonstrates that what the term sexual orientation disingenuously presents for our consideration is nothing other than “sexual disorientation.”

 

[jwinch2]

Now this is the position I believe we should take versus immediately rejecting the entire Scouting Organization in favor of starting all over again. This allows us the opportunity to start over, but at the same time remaining Catholic in the current scouting program.

This is not the end game, but rather the first step. The so called activists pushing for this change have been open and clear that this was only the beginning in regards to what they are working towards. Within 5 years there will be another change, and within 3 after that, another. In 15 years, the BSA will be unrecognizable to those who grew up in scouting and will be entirely at odds with Church teaching.

We might as well recognize this and plan for the future now instead of being reactive, which is our normal move in the Church. We can hem and haw about it for the next 10 years and then express our shock at the direction scouting has gone, or we can face reality, and get our house in order for a change.

 

[pnewton]

More specifically, he stated that the Church must remain engaged with the BSA, "We have a real obligation to stay in dialogue and to stay connected to the program.”

Which is not necessarily what you stated.

As an example, the bishops noted that we needed to remain engaged with the GSUSA, but that has not been viewed by the Bishops as a mandate that AHG troops could not be created in their dioceses, as most have done so.

“We continue.” We “stay connected.” I do not see the nuance you do. I consider “continue” and “stay” rather close. I never said or suggested that AHG troops could not be created. They can, or they cannot, depending on the priest and bishop. Neither path is right or wrong.

 

[fix]

Co ed showers are perfectly workable for adults, it works just fine at many universities, kids are too often too immature.

Yes, colleges are known for their virtuous behavior.

Parents aren’t always right.

They are more right than the homosexual advocates.

Who in this thread is saying sexual attraction matters in some cases and in some cases it doesn’t?

Anyone who claims male/female segregation is fine but not hetero/homosexual segregation when needed.

I have pointed it out several times now. Apparently the logic says it is acceptable not to have mixed bathroom and showers for male and female but that does not apply to boys with same sex attraction and heterosexual attraction. And I have asked why? The answer is never given.

 

[fix]

So, when a parent attempts to maintain modesty for their child, they are not right?

Apparently the “new” normal is pretend there is no problem.