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

[Sonic]

Anyways, I can’t keep up with this thread anymore. It’s really long. See you all later.

See ya, Kamaduck. I enjoyed talking with you.

 

[zab]

I admire your Pastor, I am sorry if the other day, I did not post a good article, I would not have known.

Just think, the BSA may be wrong but your troop might go for a 100 years and never get an “openly gay” Scout. Something to contemplate.

Oh, no, you did post a good and fair article. I didn’t mean to come across as attacking your post. I was just trying to point out that there is biased reporting out there too and there is so much hatred coming out against our pastor. There is even a petition being launched by a liberal Catholic group sending it to Archbishop Sartain and wrongfully attacking our pastor and demanding an apology.

 

[trunganhhhh]

uppppppppppppppppp
Múi giá» GMT. Hiện tại lÃ* 3:36:01 SA
Powered by: vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

[edwest2]

I think there may very well be a danger in dropping sponsorship of scout troops, not being thought of. It leaves secular groups open to stepping in to sponsor troops.

However well the intentions, Christ did not separate Himself from the sinners of His time, much less the innocents that associated with the sinners.

Nice thought, but it’s not stopping gay advocates from teaching 5 year olds about sex in public schools. Seriously, the goal is to permeate society at all levels with the LGBT agenda. Who do you think is leading the charge here? It was gay organizations that demanded this change. The sins will be theirs, not on us. Do you think for a second that the secular media will question this - at all? And if one does, they will be hunted down and branded as ****** and **********.

What’s stopping secular groups from starting their own version of scouting now? Do you think anyone promoting this cares that “openly gay” Billy is going to share a tent with straight Mike who he finds attractive?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Nice thought, but it’s not stopping gay advocates from teaching 5 year olds about sex in public schools. Seriously, the goal is to permeate society at all levels with the LGBT agenda. Who do you think is leading the charge here? It was gay organizations that demanded this change. The sins will be theirs, not on us. Do you think for a second that the secular media will question this - at all? And if one does, they will be hunted down and branded as ****** and **********.

What’s stopping secular groups from starting their own version of scouting now? Do you think anyone promoting this cares that “openly gay” Billy is going to share a tent with straight Mike who he finds attractive?

Peace,
Ed

The judging of the secular media doesn’t matter as much as the one Judge we all know and believe in. And while I agree ‘their’ sins will be their own, and not on us, we could be held accountable for the way we ‘treated’ another.

Nothing is stopping them, just as nothing seems to slow down, or stop, the thought that separation is the solution; even though Christ never taught it, or gave example to it.

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . NeedImprovement states it . . . in his/her posts. . . .

( Hi Momofmyangels . That would be “his” posts -)

God bless you and your “angels”.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Nice thought, but it’s not stopping gay advocates from teaching 5 year olds about sex in public schools. Seriously, the goal is to permeate society at all levels with the LGBT agenda. Who do you think is leading the charge here? It was gay organizations that demanded this change. The sins will be theirs, not on us. Do you think for a second that the secular media will question this - at all? And if one does, they will be hunted down and branded as ****** and **********.

What’s stopping secular groups from starting their own version of scouting now? Do you think anyone promoting this cares that “openly gay” Billy is going to share a tent with straight Mike who he finds attractive?

Peace,
Ed

Yet it would appear rather a fleeting thought - though perhaps a “nice” one . As you say , “seriously” , we really need to think things through more than that. The militant homosexuals with their incessant agenda have been quite effective in molding/engineering similar guilt-induced sentiments in individuals and in politically correct society in general . One effective angle which they work in order to dupe so many is in employing their “inclusivity” approach .

Once a person buys into ( or is coerced into ) accepting their distorted version of inclusivity , a next logical step is to go around pinning labels of separation on whatever doesn’t fit or agree with it. Even people with the best of intentions can inadvertently slip into that one.

I think some of our members have been considerably patient with particular posts which would have us accept someone’s own personal interpretation of scripture by trying to apply what our Blessed Lord did in different situations to the complex lies the gay militants are weaving into BSA.

Let’s put different situations , and their interpretation aside a moment and consider what should’ve been considered at the outset : What our Blessed Lord actually said as it pertains to this particular situation:

**“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” **

You want to talk about separation ? Try swimming back to the others with one of those around your neck .:doh2:

This idea that everyone is a sinner (true) as justification to pave the way for complete infiltration by the gay militants into BSA for their own selfish purposes , is just a hair away from justifying a potential sin of omission if one is conscious of the consequences of the lack of action. The *Penitential Act *specifies “. . . in my thoughts, in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do. . .”

So maybe, leave that non-argument behind too - otherwise, none of us would even be permitted to post here since we’re all sinners too.

 

[Brendan]

Nothing is stopping them, just as nothing seems to slow down, or stop, the thought that separation is the solution; even though Christ never taught it, or gave example to it.

So did Christ say we are to become Buddhists or Hindu’s or Muslims, or did He create a new org that is not Hindu, or Mormon or Muslim and then call all Hindus, Buddists and Muslims to leave their org and then join His?

Was Christ’s message to remain in the old ways, or to join something new that has the fullness of His Revelation?

And org that is fully committed, at every level, to Eucharistic Adoration, to the reception of the Sacraments, to obedience to the Magisterium?

There is no doubt that Christ calls us to INTERACT with others, but the goal must always be for them to leave their organization to proceed to the more Truthful one.

St. Luke, after his conversion, interacted with pagans, but he did not REMAIN a pagan.
He went to their temples with the express purpose of having them leave their temples.

 

[mark_a]

I don’t believe the evidence shows that this change is enough for the instigators. Had this been a purely, non-forced internal discussion among the leadership of the Boy Scouts, that would be one thing.

An astute observation.

Why the boy scouts are interested in promotion of heterosexual, homosexual, polygamous, bi-sexual activity or sexual activity with animals or plants (yes, it happens) is beyond me.

 

[JMJSHJ]

In order to help Prodigal Son understand how some Catholics feel about BSA I would like to post this from another thread that I think is very relevant:

From the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (from back in 1992):
10. “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 (cf. Letter, no. 3) and evokes moral concern.

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.

1. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. no. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.
2. 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 is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. no. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person’s homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.
3. The “sexual orientation” of a person is not comparable to race, sex, age, etc. also for another reason than that given above which warrants attention. An individual’s sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc., does not usually arise.
   Seems to me like the good Bishop was doing exactly what he should do.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

SSA is not the same as Homosexual. Gay = Homosexual. Moral conduct is not the same as attraction.

SSA=Homosexual=gay

You know what? JROTC is a secular organization. We wouldn’t turn them away even if they were homosexual, although we wouldn’t be as forgiving if they were actually having sex. I’m basing that on the reaction people had to one of the straight boys who had sex with his girlfriend. We weren’t pleased.

EDIT: They still wouldn’t be kicked out, though. Reprimanded, but probably not kicked out unless they got into trouble with the school or the law.

Considering that the military has abandoned DADT is there even a basis upon which to bar them membership.

You seem to be equating behavior with attraction. Fornication, Pedophilia, and Zoophilia are actions and not orientations or identities. If a person isn’t doing work, then they are not workers. If a person doesn’t fornicate, then they are not fornicators.

The latter two aren’t technically actions

You saw what Jesus said about dusting your feet off and moving on. You also know what He said about those who cause children to stumble. Facilitating child abuse is definitely causing a child to stumble.

Please state exactly how this is facilitating child abuse.

The Church already does more than enough for homosexuals. They don’t need to do more at risk to the Holy Mother Church. Yes, this is an area we need to improve on. All of us.

If by that you mean very little then yes.

There is no such thing as sexual orientation. It is a demonic contrivance of Materialism.

Why would a Scout even waste his/her time on this conjuration in the first place?

Race is also a social construct.

All kinds of verses really stand out from the Bible on this matter. But in the end, I would go with obedience to the Church, I would have to see if we are going to be talking about “nationally” or “locally”, but I would obey the Church.

The council of bishops vastly trumps pastors in terms of authority, but some people here refuse to acknowledge that.

Actually, it might be a positive witness that would attract churchgoers. And that latter statement is a bit condescending. We should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.

But let’s remember, what if one is for Scouts to be morally straight. What if somehow and considering that it could actually happen, a male got into the Scouts, was HIV positive and somehow another Scout was infected? The Scout was openly gay? Maybe this is far fetched but one could see how there could be problems that arise. We are also stewards of what God has given to us.

And that is the last I will speak on this.

You are right, it is far fetched, it may never happen in the BSA

Nice thought, but it’s not stopping gay advocates from teaching 5 year olds about sex in public schools. Seriously, the goal is to permeate society at all levels with the LGBT agenda. Who do you think is leading the charge here? It was gay organizations that demanded this change. The sins will be theirs, not on us. Do you think for a second that the secular media will question this - at all? And if one does, they will be hunted down and branded as ****** and **********.

What’s stopping secular groups from starting their own version of scouting now? Do you think anyone promoting this cares that “openly gay” Billy is going to share a tent with straight Mike who he finds attractive?

Peace,
Ed

Don’t worry, if he hits on Mike that is grounds for expulsion under past and current BSA policy.

 

[BroomWagon]

If by that you mean very little then yes.

Your opinion.

The council of bishops vastly trumps pastors in terms of authority, but some people here refuse to acknowledge that.

Individual Clergy members have acted, I would think they would be knowledgeable on the situation.

You are right, it is far fetched, it may never happen in the BSA

All the same, it may point to other issues which would not have as much of a contrasting or dangerous nature about it. I.E. Same Sex Attraction which per accounts has already occurred.

---

This is very early on and look at this story:

Boy Scouts can’t wear uniforms at gay pride parade, official says

Will we see eventually, a Scout Master not obey the authority?

There are other stories out there, a Gay Pride Center wishing to sponsor a Scout Troop. They have been refused. But one may wonder where this will all lead.

 

[Momofmyangels]

Are you or are you not saying that boys who admit to having SSA should be excluded from scouts? The new descision does not say, as far as I can tell, that this “new lifestyle” must be accepted or embraced by anybody, only that you can’t deny someone membership on the basis of sexual orientation (or, more accurately, admitting to one’s sexual orientation).

Yes, that is what I am saying. The BSA, since it’s origin banned entry to homosexuals. Why was that? Because it is an organization for children. What changed? It is still an organization for children. Last month the protection of those children was of the utmost importance. This month, children’s safety and well-being has taken a back seat to political correctness and the gay agenda. Noone can state with 100% certainty that no adverse consequences will occur because of this decision, that all children will be kept safe, that they won’t be subjected to an immoral lifestyle and forced to accept it. Until that can occur, the BSA is not fit to be an organization for children.

 

[Momofmyangels]

Yet it would appear rather a fleeting thought - though perhaps a “nice” one . As you say , “seriously” , we really need to think things through more than that. The militant homosexuals with their incessant agenda have been quite effective in molding/engineering similar guilt-induced sentiments in individuals and in politically correct society in general . One effective angle which they work in order to dupe so many is in employing their “inclusivity” approach .

Once a person buys into ( or is coerced into ) accepting their distorted version of inclusivity , a next logical step is to go around pinning labels of separation on whatever doesn’t fit or agree with it. Even people with the best of intentions can inadvertently slip into that one.

I think some of our members have been considerably patient with particular posts which would have us accept someone’s own personal interpretation of scripture by trying to apply what our Blessed Lord did in different situations to the complex lies the gay militants are weaving into BSA.

Let’s put different situations , and their interpretation aside a moment and consider what should’ve been considered at the outset : What our Blessed Lord actually said as it pertains to this particular situation:

You want to talk about separation ? Try swimming back to the others with one of those around your neck .:doh2:

This idea that everyone is a sinner (true) as justification to pave the way for complete infiltration by the gay militants into BSA for their own selfish purposes , is just a hair away from justifying a potential sin of omission if one is conscious of the consequences of the lack of action. The *Penitential Act *specifies “. . . in my thoughts, in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do. . .”

So maybe, leave that non-argument behind too - otherwise, none of us would even be permitted to post here since we’re all sinners too.

I should just leave this conversation to you as you debate much better than I.

 

[Sonic]

SSA=Homosexual=gay

Attraction does not equal conduct.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10818047&postcount=277

 

[Cat_Herder]

Please state exactly how this is facilitating child abuse.

This is how:

The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) provides minimum standards for defining physical child abuse, child neglect, and sexual abuse … Under CAPTA, child abuse and neglect means:

Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker that results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation;
An act or failure to act that presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

Therefore, a Scoutmaster has a duty under federal law to prevent any physical or emotional harm of the children in his troop. He also has a duty to prohibit imminent risk of serious harm. This duty would be violated if a Boy Scout and a Girl Scout were allowed to be left unsupervised overnight, in the showers, etc. because this would result in an imminent risk of serious harm even if they do not actually commit a sexual act.

Please state exactly how this is facilitating child abuse.

Replace the Girl Scout with a gay Boy Scout. I am not going to explain any further.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Your opinion.

Individual Clergy members have acted, I would think they would be knowledgeable on the situation.

All the same, it may point to other issues which would not have as much of a contrasting or dangerous nature about it. I.E. Same Sex Attraction which per accounts has already occurred.

---

This is very early on and look at this story:

Boy Scouts can’t wear uniforms at gay pride parade, official says

Will we see eventually, a Scout Master not obey the authority?

There are other stories out there, a Gay Pride Center wishing to sponsor a Scout Troop. They have been refused. But one may wonder where this will all lead.

My experience.

But are they more knowledgeable than the USCCB?

I don’t know what you mean to say in the third line.

---

There will always be people who would break the rules, if a Scoutmaster does violate that policy then his district needs to take action to correct the situation.

Yes, that is what I am saying. The BSA, since it’s origin banned entry to homosexuals. Why was that? Because it is an organization for children. What changed? It is still an organization for children. Last month the protection of those children was of the utmost importance. This month, children’s safety and well-being has taken a back seat to political correctness and the gay agenda. Noone can state with 100% certainty that no adverse consequences will occur because of this decision, that all children will be kept safe, that they won’t be subjected to an immoral lifestyle and forced to accept it. Until that can occur, the BSA is not fit to be an organization for children.

Actually the BSA didn’t, but it has had a ban on immoral conduct.

No one can state with 100% certainty that no adverse consequences will occur because of this of Venturing being coed, but that hasn’t stopped Venturing from being coed.

Attraction does not equal conduct.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10818047&postcount=277

The word homosexuality was not coined to mean what you think it means.

This is how:

The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) provides minimum standards for defining physical child abuse, child neglect, and sexual abuse … Under CAPTA, child abuse and neglect means:

Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker that results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation;
An act or failure to act that presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

Therefore, a Scoutmaster has a duty under federal law to prevent any physical or emotional harm of the children in his troop. He also has a duty to prohibit imminent risk of serious harm. This duty would be violated if a Boy Scout and a Girl Scout were allowed to be left unsupervised overnight, in the showers, etc. because this would result in an imminent risk of serious harm even if they do not actually commit a sexual act.

Replace the Girl Scout with a gay Boy Scout. I am not going to explain any further.

This doesn’t result in “death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation” or present “imminent risk of serious harm” in either a theological or legal sense.

 

[Cat_Herder]

This doesn’t result in “death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation” or present “imminent risk of serious harm” in either a theological or legal sense.

The legal sense here is no different than the psychological sense. All it takes is one grope or even just fear of one grope.

I don’t understand why you cannot understand.

 

[Momofmyangels]

The legal sense here is no different than the psychological sense. All it takes is one grope or even just fear of one grope.

I don’t understand why you cannot understand.

Exactly. Once childhood innocence is gone, it is gone forever.

 

[Momofmyangels]

No one can state with 100% certainty that no adverse consequences will occur because of this of Venturing being coed, but that hasn’t stopped Venturing from being coed.

That is really not a good enough argument when children are concerned.