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

[NeedImprovement]

Excerpt : 2 of 2 ; HOW ‘GAY RIGHTS’ IS BEING SOLD TO AMERICA

. . . We’ve forgotten about reality. We’ve been living in a Madison Avenue fantasy world of marketing images and carefully crafted rhetoric in the foreground, with court battles, fascist-like intimidation, and relentless waves of persuasion in the background.

But what about the truth we’ve left behind? What about the reality of homosexuality, of what causes it, and of what it means physically and spiritually for those so oriented? Do we even care any more?

Let’s rewind and go back to former Congressman Robert Bauman, who in poignantly describing his internal struggles against his homosexual compulsions confided that he had been sexually seduced when he was five years old by an older boy.

Did that experience have anything to do with Bauman’s future homosexuality?
There was a time when psychiatry, psychology, religion, and common sense all said “yes.” In fact, sexually abused young males are “up to 7 times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused,” concludes the peer-reviewed 1998 study, “Sexual Abuse of Boys,” by William C. Holmes, M.D. and Gail B. Slap, M.D.

. . . Even Kirk and Madsen, who advise activists to claim they were born homosexual, know better. “We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay,” they write, “even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.”

If “environmental factors” are involved – and everyone knows they are, whether or not they publicly admit it – why then advise homosexuals to claim they were “born gay”?

“To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen,” Kirk and Madsen explain, “is to open the can of worms labeled ‘moral choices and sin’ and give the religious intransigents a stick to beat us with. Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is for others to be heterosexual: wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it.”

Unfortunately, with all the brainy marketing behind the campaign to mainstream homosexuality, what’s been swept under the rug is the recognition – once commonplace in America – that flawed early relationships or sexual victimization can put a child on the road to homosexuality.

Children are exquisitely impressionable, so much so that sexual seduction or assault is a major trauma that can, and often does, reprogram the victim’s identity – his view of who and what he is. While the Holmes and Slap study confirms this, the point is self-evident: our prisons are full of child molesters who were molested as children and batterers who were battered as children.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church [2389] concurs that those who sexually abuse children scar them for life.

. . . any sexual abuse perpetrated by adults on children or adolescents entrusted to their care. The offense is compounded by the scandalous harm done to the physical and moral integrity of the young, who will remain scarred by it all their lives; and the violation of responsibility for their upbringing.

The article HOW ‘GAY RIGHTS’ IS BEING SOLD TO AMERICA drives home the fact of just how impressionable children are - “exquisitely impressionable” was the descriptive. We have just read testimony from a Catholic that children will abuse other children and that this does scar them for life. I believe the current stance which BSA was bullied into taking - by the homosexual activists, increases the risk factor.

Everyone who tries to mislead someone else’s children into believing that homosexuality is good and healthy also violate that child’s parents’ rights . . . and “responsibility for their upbringing.”

And I’ll mention it again : These people are also child molesters - because they molest children’s souls. And the one who said “Thou shalt not kill” means Thou shalt not kill the body , and, moreover, “thou shalt not kill the soul”. . . not far fetched in the least , but rather, grounded in good Catholic reality. Where do we believe the “scarring” they speak of in the CCC is principally located . . . on the body, or the soul ?

The BSA policy as it stands, particularly because homosexual activists want to take it and run with it, sends a tacit message to the rest of scouting that homosexuality is good and healthy. And you can be sure the gay militants will do whatever is required to successfully intimidate and brainwash everyone into accepting this

This relentless brainwashing also affects childrens impressionable minds/souls. If a policy enables this type of scandal to develop, those who changed/allowed the policy will, in the end analysis, have to be held accountable along with they gay militants for the consequences - and the victims are not going to be one or two (purportedly) “openly gay” scouts plus a whole lot of imaginary ones - the victims are going to be other peoples children ; lots of them. And the gay militants couldn’t care less.

 

[april32010]

Anyone else ever periodically get a little tired of this constant barrage of bovine byproducts brought onto Catholic forums ,implying this is somehow supposed to be all our fault .

also i believe 37 post in 39 hours on one topic is a rules infraction on agenda posting it is rather tiresome.

 

[NeedImprovement]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church [2389] concurs that those who sexually abuse children scar them for life.

The article HOW ‘GAY RIGHTS’ IS BEING SOLD TO AMERICA drives home the fact of just how impressionable children are - “exquisitely impressionable” was the descriptive. We have just read testimony from a Catholic that children will abuse other children and that this does scar them for life. I believe the current stance which BSA was bullied into taking - by the homosexual activists, increases the risk factor.

Everyone who tries to mislead someone else’s children into believing that homosexuality is good and healthy also violate that child’s parents’ rights . . . and “responsibility for their upbringing.”

And I’ll mention it again : These people are also child molesters - because they molest children’s souls. And the one who said “Thou shalt not kill” means Thou shalt not kill the body , and, moreover, “thou shalt not kill the soul”. . . not far fetched in the least , but rather, grounded in good Catholic reality. Where do we believe the “scarring” they speak of in the CCC takes place . . . on the body, or in the soul ?

The BSA policy as it stands, particularly because homosexual activists want to take it and run with it, sends a tacit message to the rest of scouting that homosexuality is good and healthy. And you can be sure the gay militants will do whatever is required to successfully intimidate and brainwash everyone into accepting this

This relentless brainwashing also affects childrens impressionable minds/souls. If a policy enables this type of scandal to develop, those who changed/allowed the policy will, in the end analysis, have to be held accountable along with they gay militants for the consequences - and the victims are not going to be one or two (purportedly) “openly gay” scouts plus a whole lot of imaginary ones - the victims are going to be other peoples children ; lots of them. And the gay militants couldn’t care less.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

This thread tends to wander. Please stay on the topic of the original post.

This thread is not a place for postulating homosexual conspiracy theories.

Please charitably discuss the issues, not other members

 

[JMJSHJ]

Even in spite of the fact that Catholic can still in good faith participate in the Boy Scouts, this recent development and how there is a fundamental shift in how society is viewing homosexuality, I wonder how long it will be before the Bishops issue a revision about participation in the Boy Scouts.

 

[Catherine_S]

Scouts sending up the white flag by Anthony Esolen Sun Jun 09, 2013 08:22 EST.
Do you know, Scoutmasters, what you have done? You were the last prominent public institution left standing that retained for yourselves some small shred of that forgotten but foundational freedom, the freedom of association. It should have been repugnant to a people loving liberty that anyone would hale you before any court in the land, much less the Supreme Court, to compel you to alter your standards for membership in the Scouts – standards that have gotten fairly lax at that.
When they were condemning you for resisting the idea that men who are sexually attracted to boys should be in charge of troops of boys, did you not notice that they were also busy condemning Catholic bishops for hiding priests who had acted upon the very same attractions? Did you think they were just incoherent? Did you not understand that they hated you for the virtues you still upheld, although now only sporadically and confusedly? 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/scouts-sending-up-the-white-flag1?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=7744b0dff5-LifeSiteNews_com_Canada_Headlines_06_09_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0caba610ac-7744b0dff5-326156810
.
Finally, where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for Church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to Church organizations and institutions. The Church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws (cf. no. 17).
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

[Catherine_S]

Hopefully we have learned from our mistakes.

It would certainly appear that many of we Catholics have* not*** learned from our mistakes!
.
Scouts sending up the white flag by Anthony Esolen Sun Jun 09, 2013 08:22 EST.
Do you know, Scoutmasters, what you have done? You were the last prominent public institution left standing that retained for yourselves some small shred of that forgotten but foundational freedom, the freedom of association. It should have been repugnant to a people loving liberty that anyone would hale you before any court in the land, much less the Supreme Court, to compel you to alter your standards for membership in the Scouts – standards that have gotten fairly lax at that.
When they were condemning you for resisting the idea that men who are sexually attracted to boys should be in charge of troops of boys, did you not notice that they were also busy condemning Catholic bishops for hiding priests who had acted upon the very same attractions? Did you think they were just incoherent? Did you not understand that they hated you for the virtues you still upheld, although now only sporadically and confusedly? 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/scouts-sending-up-the-white-flag1?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+ Newsletter&utm_campaign=7744b0dff5-LifeSiteNews_com_Canada_Headlines_06_09_ 2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0caba61 0ac-7744b0dff5-326156810
.
Finally,** where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate** for Church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to Church organizations and institutions. The Church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws (cf. no. 17).
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

[Dave_McGrath]

Bottom line: if an activist tries to tell you history, verify it.

My pleasure:

First, I prefer the term “human rights activist” because I am fighting for rights on several fronts. Gay rights simply being a subset of human rights. But… as you wish.

Picture

Here I explain the nuance between the 1978 memorandum excluding homosexuals from the Boy Scouts of America, the 1991 codification of that memo into the anti-gay policy, the 2013 vote on policy which perpetuates discrimination against gays, and the memorandum of 6 June 2013 from Boy Scouts of America Operations Executive which explains “The Boy Scouts of America have never had an agenda either for or against homosexuality.” I am trying to find a way where all those statements can be true at the same time. But I can’t. Notice my Moral Compass and Kazoo. Both work.

1978 Memorandum
bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa_gay_policy.html#1978

1991 Policy
bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa_gay_policy.html#Eagletter

1993 Policy Revision
bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa_gay_policy.html#93Position

2013 Policy Resolution
scouting.org/sitecore/content/MembershipStandards/Resolution/Resolution.aspx

2013 Policy Implementation
%between%

The implementation letter is very interesting. The Boy Scouts of America Corporate states it has no agenda neither for against homosexuals. And yet it has this history of policy statements that are difficult to reconcile.

Peace.

 

[BroomWagon]

African Americans struggled for civil rights, beware of those who exploit that. This is not the Human Rights issue some claim it is.

This page indeed indicates NAMBLA and others have had their sights on Boy Scouts for a long time.

americantraditions.org/Articles/A%20Record%20of%20Sexual%20Abuse%20of%20Boy%20Scouts%20by%20Homosexuals.htm

Incredibly, the pro-pedophile group, North American Man Boy LoveAssociation (NAMBLA), which calls itself a homosexual group, wrote a letter to the national Scout office urging “the Boy Scouts of America to cease its discrimination against openly gay or lesbian persons in the appointment of its scout masters and scouters and in its membership. This will permit scouts to be exposed to a variety of life styles and will permit more of those individuals who genuinely wish to serve boys to do so.”

 

[markomalley]

My pleasure:

You’ve shown us nothing but a link to a homosexual activist website. No sources.

Are you seriously trying to tell the reader that in 1930, 1940, 1950, and so on up to 1978 that a boy could have announced to his entire pack /troop that he was homosexual and proud of it…with no repercussions?

And then, all of a sudden, those eeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiillllllllll right wingers kidnapped the BSA and changed their policy?

You’ll have to do a whole lot better.

 

[BroomWagon]

You’ve shown us nothing but a link to a homosexual activist website. No sources.

Are you seriously trying to tell the reader that in 1930, 1940, 1950, and so on up to 1978 that a boy could have announced to his entire pack /troop that he was homosexual and proud of it…with no repercussions?

And then, all of a sudden, those eeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiillllllllll right wingers kidnapped the BSA and changed their policy?

You’ll have to do a whole lot better.

I wonder why these are not seen as Conspiracist Theories too.

 

[Dave_McGrath]

You’ve shown us nothing but a link to a homosexual activist website. No sources.

Are you seriously trying to tell the reader that in 1930, 1940, 1950, and so on up to 1978 that a boy could have announced to his entire pack /troop that he was homosexual and proud of it…with no repercussions?

And then, all of a sudden, those eeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiillllllllll right wingers kidnapped the BSA and changed their policy?

You’ll have to do a whole lot better.

Those links have the text of the policies. The text can be further researched to find the facsimiles of the originals.

I’m not dealing with supposition. These are indeed the historical facts of the matter.

I am an Eagle Scout. But I didn’t swear an oath to the Corporation of the Boy Scouts of America. I swore an oath to the values and principles stated in the Boy Scout Laws, Oaths, Promise and Slogan.

It’s important to stick with the facts of the matter: and the facts are policies exist unique to the Boy Scouts of America which deny human rights to a subset of their population. And then they deny it. It simply is what it simply is. BSA should fix it.

Peace.

 

[gam197]

I posted a thread on boy scouts marching in the Utah gay pride parade on June 2, 2013 and it was removed saying another thread was discussing this so I looked for my thread to see if it had been attached and have not found it. I have not read this thread but do want to post this as this is important. Were there any catholic boy scouts in the gay pride parade?

afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147535871

I know it is AFA but photo is Associated Press Photo.

 

[markomalley]

You have yet to substantiate any facts.

The facts, the way I read them, are:

The Boy Scouts have always had a requirement that their boys believe in Good and be morally straight. Up until a few dresses ago, the was no question as to what that meant.

It became necessary, due to activists, for them to explicitly define something that had been a matter of common sense since time immemorial, due to tyre actions of activists who wish to undermine those values which define boy scouts.

By the way, it is generally considered appropriate for the one presenting a thesis to be required to present the proof in defense of that thesis. You are the one proposing the eeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllll conservatives took my toys away thesis. So you can defend it.

 

[Dave_McGrath]

I posted a thread on boy scouts marching in the Utah gay pride parade on June 2, 2013 and it was removed saying another thread was discussing this so I looked for my thread to see if it had been attached and have not found it. I have not read this thread but do want to post this as this is important. Were there any catholic boy scouts in the gay pride parade?

afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147535871

I know it is AFA but photo is Associated Press Photo.

Yes. But the boy was a youth, so cannot give his name. He came out of the crowd. Parents were present (they were Catholic, too). I didn’t catch their names.

We had Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopaleans, Mormons and Jews. To my knowledge none of the marchers were gay. I interviewed all of them.

I am the gentleman in the wool crusher hat at the front of the formation providing technical support.

Peace.

 

[Joe_5859]

I understand that people are not happy with this policy change. I largely share that sentiment. But I think we would do well to pause and look at what our Bishops and their Scouting related groups are saying:

• NCCS Statement
• NCCS National Chairman
• Bishop Robert E. Guglielmone, NCCS episcopal liaison
• Archdiocese of Denver
• Archdiocese of St. Louis
• Archdiocese of Washington DC
• Diocese of Duluth
• Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend
• Diocese of Rockford

Note particularly what none of them are saying. None are saying that this policy change places BSA at odds with Catholic teaching. None are saying that Catholics must leave BSA.

Do we imagine the NCCS and the bishops are ignorant of the CDF statement? I don’t think so. I’m not ignorant of it and I still see no conflict. Claiming that the bishops are missing some important piece of the puzzle and thereby are commenting in ignorance is really just a dodge so as not to be forced to confront the simple truth that no bishop is advocating abandoning BSA at this time.

I know some disagree and will be tempted to fire off an immediate post in disagreement. But I would encourage some real reflection on this point.

Note, I’m not saying parents have no right to place or remove their kids in whatever program they want. If Catholics parents want to run for the hill, I can understand that (even if I don’t agree with it). But we should not paint that as the only legitimate course of action. It’s not. And it runs counter to the comments of every bishop who has said anything publicly so far.

Again, think about what the bishops who have spoken are really saying.

 

[gilliam]

Gam197,

Dave (the poster right above yours) was in the march in Utah and has been discussing it.

As I mentioned before, only a handful of Scouts/Scouters marched in uniform (not even an entire patrol) and many of that small group who wore uniforms are not active in the program anymore. One boy had to borrow a uniform to wear, for example.

By the way, I am not approving of the action by these folks, they were disobedient and violated the Scout Law since they were asked explicitly not to march and told that it violated BSA policies to participate in any political or social advocacy in uniform.

This does not excuse their actions, but before you ask “when will the BSA remove any member that participated?” realize that this isn’t the first time this has happened and most of the social advocacy incidents in the past were on the conservative side. These references were posted recently on Linked-In:

Romney campaign photos:
bagnewsnotes.com/files/2012/10/Scouts-Greeting-Romney-9.18.12.jpg
media.spokesman.com/photos/2012/09/20/romney_t470.JPG?84974f3f373deb0dda0f75a22ddd9b7d3a332b26
a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ap_romney_mlk_parade_kb_120705_wmain.jpg
bagnewsnotes.com/2012/10/on-my-honor-looking-at-romney-ryan-and-the-boy-scouts/

Texas Faith and Family Day (on steps of the Texas Capitol with Rick Perry)
fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/600198_486401764747934_1131442528_n.jpg
lisagraas.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/rick-perry-300x280.jpg

Here is the link to the June 6th letter stating the BSA policy against political and social advocacy: fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/971560_542243812498419_1636994690_n.png

 

[Dave_McGrath]

… morally straight …

Morally does not mean “sexually.”

“Straight” is a gay-slang term first appearing in literature in 1941.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosexuality#Slang

And yet the Scout Promise was published by Robert Baden-Powell in 1910. The conflation of terms in a sexual context is impossible. It also isn’t the way the Boy Scouts Handbook describes it.
usscouts.org/advance/boyscout/bsoath.asp

I find the “eeeeeeevvvvillllll” thing insulting. I am addressing issues, not ad hominems. Can we do this respectfully?

Peace

 

[Catherine_S]

Hopefully we have learned from our mistakes.

It would certainly appear that many of we Catholics have* not** learned from our mistakes! *
.
Scouts sending up the white flag by Anthony Esolen Sun Jun 09, 2013 08:22 EST.
Do you know, Scoutmasters, what you have done? You were the last prominent public institution left standing that retained for yourselves some small shred of that forgotten but foundational freedom, the freedom of association. It should have been repugnant to a people loving liberty that anyone would hale you before any court in the land, much less the Supreme Court, to compel you to alter your standards for membership in the Scouts – standards that have gotten fairly lax at that.
When they were condemning you for resisting the idea that men who are sexually attracted to boys should be in charge of troops of boys, did you not notice that they were also busy condemning Catholic bishops for hiding priests who had acted upon the very same attractions? Did you think they were just incoherent? Did you not understand that they hated you for the virtues you still upheld, although now only sporadically and confusedly? 

[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sc...hite-flag1?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+ Newsletter&utm_campaign=7744b0dff5-LifeSiteNews_com_Canada_Headlines_06_09_ 2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0caba61 0ac-7744b0dff5-326156810](http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sc...hite-flag1?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+ Newsletter&utm_campaign=7744b0dff5-LifeSiteNews_com_Canada_Headlines_06_09_ 2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0caba61 0ac-7744b0dff5-326156810)
.
SOME CONSIDERATIONS
CONCERNING THE RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
ON THE NON-DISCRIMINATION OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS*
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. It is from this quarter that one is more likely to find those who seek to* “manipulate the** Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to** changing civil statutes and** laws”** (cf. no. 5), those who use the tactic** of protesting that “any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people… are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination” (cf. no. 9).*
.
Finally, where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for Church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to Church organizations and institutions. The Church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws (cf. no. 17).
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

[Tigg]

I understand that people are not happy with this policy change. I largely share that sentiment. But I think we would do well to pause and look at what our Bishops and their Scouting related groups are saying:

• NCCS Statement
• NCCS National Chairman
• Bishop Robert E. Guglielmone, NCCS episcopal liaison
• Archdiocese of Denver
• Archdiocese of St. Louis
• Archdiocese of Washington DC
• Diocese of Duluth
• Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend
• Diocese of Rockford

Note particularly what none of them are saying. None are saying that this policy change places BSA at odds with Catholic teaching. None are saying that Catholics must leave BSA.

Do we imagine the NCCS and the bishops are ignorant of the CDF statement? I don’t think so. I’m not ignorant of it and I still see no conflict. Claiming that the bishops are missing some important piece of the puzzle and thereby are commenting in ignorance is really just a dodge so as not to be forced to confront the simple truth that no bishop is advocating abandoning BSA at this time.

I know some disagree and will be tempted to fire off an immediate post in disagreement. But I would encourage some real reflection on this point.

Note, I’m not saying parents have no right to place or remove their kids in whatever program they want. If Catholics parents want to run for the hill, I can understand that (even if I don’t agree with it). But we should not paint that as the only legitimate course of action. It’s not. And it runs counter to the comments of every bishop who has said anything publicly so far.

Again, think about what the bishops who have spoken are really saying.

Thanks, Joe, for adding the bolded to your post. I hate to sound like a broken record, but parents, WAKE UP! YOU must be the moral guidance for your children and only you can protect against the dangers in your child’s particular circumstance. Parents have unique qualities and one up on the bishops if they keep their antennae up and use the eyes in the back of their heads!