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

[pnewton]

Well, that’s getting a little silly. Al Capone? You’d have been closer with Jeffery Dahmer. At least he was gay. And Jackson, although he slipped away from the accusations, was clearly a special case.

Any more silly or special than “ability to save?” I did not know boy scouts was life threatening or salvific.

 

[on_the_hill]

Any more silly or special than “ability to save?” I did not know boy scouts was life threatening or salvific.

Well, o.k. Maybe saved isn’t the word. I think counselors and therapists use “redirected.” Does that work? The boys could have been redirected.

 

[Sonic]

Well, that’s getting a little silly. Al Capone? You’d have been closer with Jeffery Dahmer. At least he was gay. And Jackson, although he slipped away from the accusations, was clearly a special case.

Not anymore than your imaginary gay man with no name. At least, Jackson and Capone were real people.

Unrelated, but since you brought it up… Dahmer showed pathological problems unrelated to being homosexual. He thought he was homosexual, but his obsession was in creating a zombie from which he could control and would never leave him. Go watch the actual trial testimony…Jeffrey Dahmer - Serial Killer - Full Trial on Youtube.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Curious, though, that the CDF uses the term:

**Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons – Homosexualitatis problema **(1986)

For example:

The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.
There are other uses of the term in that document, as well.

Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons (1992)

1. 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.
   Just as an FYI.

I’m not sure their first reference you quoted would be classified as a “use” of the word as much as a critique . . . “a reductionist reference”.

I would agree totally however that your second example "there are areas. . . " supports the point you make.

But what are they really saying in that second one? Maybe it’s worth a little more scrutinous look than a he said she said. If you ask me, what the quote is saying while being very careful to evade being given a “hatred” label is that (**highlighted edits **mine)

1. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take **active and/or open homosexuality, and lesbianism and bisexuality **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.
   . . .

Isn’t that what is really being said ?

1986 was a little early in the game. The second quote referred to just above, as indicated is from 1992. It was around this time that militant homosexuals were succeeding is getting “sexual orientation” included in the Canadian Charter of Rights . An openly gay MP, Svend Robinson would later, by political slight of hand, and against the majority, finally succeed in 2004 to amend sections of the Criminal Code to include “sexual orientation” in hate crimes with Bill C-250

I did notice that in the CDF’s CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS which was promulgated in 2003 , there was not one reference to “sexual orientation” . Now I may have missed it so feel free to point out to me if I did, but I don’t recall seing that term anywhere in the document.

Perhaps a few of us had learned a valuable lesson by then.

My point is that, to properly evaluate the morality of homosexuality , three levels must be distinguished. Father John Hardon, SJ , says we need to distinguish between , homosexual tendency, homosexual attraction and active homosexuality - which is always morally indefensible.

HOMOSEXUALITY.
In general, some form of sexual relationship among members of the same sex. From a moral standpoint, three levels are to be distinguished: tendency, attraction, and activity. Homosexual tendencies in any person are within the normal range of human nature, whose fallen condition includes every conceivable kind of impulse that with sincere effort and divine grace can be controlled. Sexual attraction for members of the same sex may be partly due to the peculiar make-up of certain individuals or, more often, the result of indiscretion or seduction and presents a graver problem; yet this, too, is not by itself sinful and may in fact be an occasion for great supernatural merit. When the condition is pathological, it requires therapy. Active homosexuality is morally indefensible and has been many times forbidden in revelation and the teaching of the Church. The most extensive declaration on the subject was by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Pope Paul VI on November 7, 1975.

therealpresence.org/dictionary/adict.htm

What the term “sexual orientation” does is to scramble these three distinctions. The gay activists count on that.

Once we understand that the homosexual lobby wants to to silence any views on homosexuality but its own , it becomes more than apparent just how convenient the term “sexual orientation” is in achieving this goal.

 

[NeedImprovement]

EXCERPT FROM The Real Homosexual Agenda

Another new pro-homosexual group called Just the Facts Coalition has issued a slick pro-homosexual “fact sheet” which they mailed to every school superintendent in the 15,000 public school districts across the country with the goal that children will be taught to accept and promote homosexuality. This coalition includes the National Education Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association of School Psychologists, American Federation of Teachers, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance and others.

The document, entitled “Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth - A Primer for Principals, Education & School Personnel” is a 12 page booklet which confuses providing a safe environment for all students with saying that homosexuality is good, normal and healthy. They demand that homosexuality be accepted as the moral and legal equivalent of heterosexuality and present their one-sided view. (Traditional Values Coalition)

Produced at the urging of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), the booklet denigrates groups that help and support people who want to leave the homosexual lifestyle. It incorrectly portrays heterosexuality as a “religious” viewpoint and homosexuality as “scientific.” It warns of potential harm to young people and includes a threat to schools of legal action if they do no censor views which do not agree with theirs. (Impact - Coral Ridge Ministries)

“This is another attempt by the homosexual lobby to silence any views on homosexuality but its own. The primer does not acknowledge the unhealthy consequences of homosexuality. It presents a one-sided case that promotes homosexuality by advocating censorship for information in schools about the opportunity of individuals to experience a healthy change and leave the homosexual lifestyle.” (Janet Parshall - Family Research Council)

The real potential for harm here is that this misinformation leaves kids with no way out. They need to hear the truth that there is an alternative to this propaganda. If the homosexual community has nothing to hide and the truth is really on their side, why are they so afraid of other viewpoints and open dialogue? Guard your children from the unhealthy consequences of homosexuality and protect your right of free speech. Call your local school superintendent or school board member and voice your opinion about this harmful booklet.

 

[NeedImprovement]

ANOTHER EXCERPT FROM The Real Homosexual Agenda

“It’s Elementary” is a pro-homosexual propaganda documentary aimed at children in grade school. The video conveys the message that homosexuality is good and those that disagree are bad. This is the Joe Camel of the homosexual movement. Only unlike Joe Camel that targets teens, this video targets children as young as five or six years old. And unlike cigarettes, there are no warning labels. The 78-minute lesbian-produced documentary shows teachers introducing pupils to homosexuality and urging its acceptance by manipulation, indoctrination, use of trusted authority figures, and peer pressure.

It’s Elementary is not about simply teaching “tolerance.” Indeed, the president of the National Education Association has declared this himself: “I’m not talking about tolerance,” says Bob Chase in support of the program. “I’m talking about acceptance.” This deceptive program has already made astonishing inroads into America’s educational, political, and media worlds. The film’s producers have bragged about the wide distribution of the film through “an extremely effective grassroots distribution campaign.” According to the producers, It’s Elementary has been shown to state legislators, all grade levels of school teachers and counselors, statewide “school safety” conferences, regional school health provider meetings, PTAs, faculty in over 200 school districts, students from high school through graduate study levels, school administrators, nearly 500 college-level teacher training programs, and many more.

It’s Elementary includes scenes from a Cambridge school’s “Gay and Lesbian Day” assembly in which teachers profess their homosexuality in front of the students. At another school, a lesbian and a male homosexual visit a social studies class to talk about homosexuality – and, according to the principal, “to be role models for gay students.” Such teaching, says the principal, “should be mandatory.”

According to Family Research Council’s website, “teacher after teacher in the film present homosexuality as normal and resistance to the lifestyle as bigotry – to children as young as first grade.” Lies about the biblical view of homosexuality appear to be part of the fabric of this film. There is no balance of any other views offered anywhere in the film.

Some quotes from the video: Debra Chasnoff has this to say about her video, “What’s clear in the film is that the younger the kids, the more open they were. …If we could start doing this kind of education in kindergarten, first grade, second grade, we’d have a better generation.” The principal of an elementary school says on the video: “I don’t think it’s appropriate that values only be taught at home. There are social values as well, there are community values.”

 

[BroomWagon]

Pardon me if this was posted, I will read the previous few pages but a Priest has cut ties to BSA.

Priest cuts ties to Boy Scouts over gay scout decision

BREMERTON, Wash. – On the heels of a historic decision by the Boy Scouts of America, a local priest is making history of his own. He’s among the first in the country to cut all ties to the scouts, now that the organization has agreed to allow openly gay members.

Father Derek Lappe is the priest at Our Lady Star of the Sea in Bremerton.

For years, the church has served as the chartering organization for BSA Troop 1501 in Kitsap County.

“We do things like scout Sunday at mass, the boys are just very much a part of our parish and the life of our parish,” he said.

 

[zab]

Pardon me if this was posted, I will read the previous few pages but a Priest has cut ties to BSA.

If you are interested in finding the truth about what Father Lappe said, then one should read his entire response on the parish website and not base their opinions on biased news reports such as Q13 FOX News. King5 News did a more fair report.

video (click photo) and article King 5 News: king5.com/news/local/Bremerton-priest-cuts-Ties-to-Boy-Scouts-209285331.html

video Q13 BIASED: q13fox.com/2013/05/30/bremerton-catholic-church-pulls-parish-out-of-boy-scouts-after-decision-to-accept-gay-kids/#axzz2UoB6Y8GD

 

[Elizium23]

Announcement from the Chairman of the NCCS

Good. I commend the Chairman for being straightforward and honest here, although it is to be expected that he side with the BSA - what are his other options? Resign his position?

I am of two minds about this decision. It does not conflict with Catholic teaching and it ends “unjust discrimination”. This is a good thing, in itself, by isolation. However - it is a foot in the door, a chink in the armor. The homosexualists will come in and demand more and more concessions. How long do you really think it will take until the prohibition on homosexual leaders falls by the wayside too? One generation? All it takes is for today’s homosexualist Scouts to grow up and want to be leaders. By that time, the tide of public opinion will be a tsunami. The BSA will be bullied into capitulation, if not by the public, by the legislators and judicial branch. It’s really sad that a subculture that has so much to lose from bullying, that speaks out so forcefully against it, uses bullying as their primary weapon in the war for public opinion.

Therefore I have to conclude that this decision, which could have been a great victory for those seeking equality and justice, is merely one lost battle as a prelude to a lost war against the BSA which, much like the Catholic Church, is seen as an icon of Truth and therefore a legitimate target to be taken down with great prejudice.

 

[Joe_5859]

This is the main point I take away from the bishop’s comments:

As the policy change is right now promoted, we can live with it.

Yes, there is a contingent of people trying to move things in a direction we Catholics do not want to see. But we’re not quite there yet. The policy as written doesn’t really change much of anything.

 

[BroomWagon]

If you are interested in finding the truth about what Father Lappe said, then one should read his entire response on the parish website and not base their opinions on biased news reports such as Q13 FOX News. King5 News did a more fair report.

video (click photo) and article King 5 News: king5.com/news/local/Bremerton-priest-cuts-Ties-to-Boy-Scouts-209285331.html

video Q13 BIASED: q13fox.com/2013/05/30/bremerton-catholic-church-pulls-parish-out-of-boy-scouts-after-decision-to-accept-gay-kids/#axzz2UoB6Y8GD

I posted an article, nobody is forcing you to read it. Go find other ones, the article is fine with me.

 

[Cat_Herder]

The policy as written doesn’t really change much of anything.

It exposes boys to possible sexual harassment and molestation from their peers, as explained here. That is why I resigned. I still sigh typing that, because of all the BSA did for me as a boy. But no amount of good that program could provide outweighs the risk of child abuse. If there is anything that can be done to avoid such a tragedy, then it MUST be done, and that means leaving the BSA behind.

It’s time to let go and start over with a new program. The BSA is not Scouting. Let the BSA (sigh) fade away so that Scouting can live.

 

[zab]

I posted an article, nobody is forcing you to read it. Go find other ones, the article is fine with me.

I don’t understand your tone here. I think you misjudged my intention. The article that you posted suggested that people go to the website and read Father’s response in its entirety. As I said ,The King 5 news report (the one that you linked to) was fair where as the Q13 FOX report was more biased.

 

[on_the_hill]

It exposes boys to possible sexual harassment and molestation from their peers, as explained here.

This is what I don’t understand.

As I have stated earlier: I personally witnessed sexual harassment when I was a Scout. It was perpetrated by straight Scouts. Not by adults, straight adults, gay adults, gay Scouts, but by 15, 16, 17 year old boys.

Aside from that, gay Scouts are already in troops. Just as there are gay priests in the Church. I wouldn’t tell my son not to be an altar server because a few priests were/are pedophiles.

I think we’re just going to go around and around with this.

 

[fix]

This is the main point I take away from the bishop’s comments:

As the policy change is right now promoted, we can live with it.

Yes, there is a contingent of people trying to move things in a direction we Catholics do not want to see. But we’re not quite there yet. The policy as written doesn’t really change much of anything.

It is putting a good face on a bad situation. Note he said we can live with it, Not a glowing endorsement. The point is the change happened for a reason, so if it is really no big deal then why change at all?

On paper it is not bad. The problem is in practice it is a much bigger deal.

 

[fix]

I don’t think that is going to cut it when, one day we have to account for how we raised our children and what we subjected them to.

That is a central point. We ought to look at all our decisions from a standpoint of eternity. We tend to focus on emotional details too much and moral truth too little.

 

[PaulinVA]

I have no problem treating a ten year old boy who thinks he likes boys the same as any other ten year old. I have a problem with eighteen year old men who are attracted to men in that regard.

The real issue is to me is that there is no way to respectfully deal with the sexual attraction issue. There are pages of discussions here about showers and camping and such. Are all, say, 13 year old boys, whether they like girls or boys, to be treated the same? Is modesty an issue? Are the boys with SSA being put in positions of temptation? Are the straight kids being made to feel uncomfortable?

My wife and I have talked about this and are perplexed. Do you not make the straight kids sleep in tents or whatever with SSA kids? Do you put all the SSA kids in one tent? Would that be a problem? There’s no good answer if you talk about attraction, and not just gender.

 

[fix]

I have no problem treating a ten year old boy who thinks he likes boys the same as any other ten year old. I have a problem with eighteen year old men who are attracted to men in that regard.

The real issue is to me is that there is no way to respectfully deal with the sexual attraction issue. There are pages of discussions here about showers and camping and such. Are all, say, 13 year old boys, whether they like girls or boys, to be treated the same? Is modesty an issue? Are the boys with SSA being put in positions of temptation? Are the straight kids being made to feel uncomfortable?

My wife and I have talked about this and are perplexed. Do you not make the straight kids sleep in tents or whatever with SSA kids? Do you put all the SSA kids in one tent? Would that be a problem? There’s no good answer if you talk about attraction, and not just gender.

And the point is specific questions get ignored or minimized. The bright red line people want to claim exists between attraction and behavior is not that bright in situations like this.

We have several documents from the Vatican that attempt to shed light on this. Those documents get ignored as well.

 

[classica87]

Well, I haven’t read the whole thread, but I like Bishop Robert’s stance. Than again, maybe I’m a bit biased; he is the bishop of my diocese! He’s an awesome guy.

I think I’m wondering the same thing as most people. Should scouts with SSA have different tents or something? I mean, we don’t let girls and guys share tents in these sort of situations.

 

[zab]

Well, I haven’t read the whole thread, but I like Bishop Robert’s stance. Than again, maybe I’m a bit biased; he is the bishop of my diocese! He’s an awesome guy.

I think I’m wondering the same thing as most people. Should scouts with SSA have different tents or something? I mean, we don’t let girls and guys share tents in these sort of situations.

I have no reason to doubt that your bishop is “an awesome guy.” He is following his conscience on his response and people who listened to him also are following their conscience in accepting what he said including his belief that there should not be a Catholic flight from the Boy Scouts. It is fine that people are defending their bishop. I am not asking the above poster in particular, but how can anyone deny a pastor for following his own conscience on this issue? Father Lappe, my pastor, is an awesome guy, too, and he makes good sense in his response to the BSA decision to allow openly gay boys as members. He cannot make this a non-issue because the BSA has already made it an issue.