I guess my point is as far as I can tell the old policy confirmed with Catholic teaching. The new policy is said to conform with Catholic teaching. If both policies conform then it is a prudential issue. That said the new policy seems only legitimate on paper. Once it is put into practice and the hard questions are asked I think things should change.Did the old policy explicitly state “it’s OK if a Boy Scout has announced a proclivity for homosexual conduct”?
Or did the old policy simply not address the “sexual preference” of the boys one way or the other?
Think about the military for a bit. The homosexual activists stated that “don’t ask, don’t tell” was forcing them to live a lie. They conveniently neglected to mention (and most of the public seemed to have forgotten) that prior to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, homosexuality was asked about, investigated, and cause for less than honorable discharge.
The narrative they crafted was that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was something unjust done to them…when, in fact, the opposite wasn’t the case.
Seems to me that Mr. McGrath and other homosexual activists are trying to apply the same level of double-speak here. They imply that prior to this “policy change” by the BSA, an 11 year old boy would have been free to announce that he is homosexual. I would bet that an actual examination of history would reveal nothing of the sort.
Bottom line: if an activist tries to tell you history, verify it.
IMHO, kicking a boy to the curb just because he tells you he has SSA is against Catholic teaching.I guess my point is as far as I can tell the old policy confirmed with Catholic teaching. The new policy is said to conform with Catholic teaching. If both policies conform then it is a prudential issue. That said the new policy seems only legitimate on paper. Once it is put into practice and the hard questions are asked I think things should change.
I think the bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend summed up things very nicely in his response:I guess my point is as far as I can tell the old policy confirmed with Catholic teaching. The new policy is said to conform with Catholic teaching. If both policies conform then it is a prudential issue. That said the new policy seems only legitimate on paper. Once it is put into practice and the hard questions are asked I think things should change.
I guess I understand about being “vigilant on how this new policy is interpreted and implemented”. But still, the Boy Scouts as an organization are in the position of a mentor. The “mentor” says “We take no offense in your tent-mate telling you he’s homosexual.” Possibly other boys will not take the “mentor’s” message to mean “There’s nothing wrong or abnormal about homosexuality, generally.” Perhaps they will.I think the bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend summed up things very nicely in his response:
As the new policy currently stands, I see no reason to prohibit our parishes from sponsoring Boy Scout troops. At the same time, it is critical that we be vigilant on how this new policy is interpreted and implemented.
We certainly need to keep both eyes open going forward. Things very well could shift in directions that Catholics cannot follow. But we’re not there yet.
I know many seem to want to paint it as a forgone conclusion that things definitely will shift in such directions in light of this one policy change. I for one do not wish to adopt such a fatalist, defeatist attitude. Until that actually happens, I say we stay and fight. The future ain’t written in stone. Let’s not succumb to the lie that it is inevitable.
I fully realize that morally straight has nothing to do with heterosexual vs homosexual.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
Respectfully, it is not okay to do these in any of these cases above for consistency’s sake, the 2nd time you have referred to this however in turn though through the public perception, there would be a difference in being seen with a politician, Clinton, Palin or whomever and a rally celebrating for example, Colorado’s legalization of marijuana and all the groups that would be associated with that. So all in all, in different views, it is not the ‘same.’ I don’t know why some Scouts don’t bolt from common perceptions and claim a right to march in support of the Colorado Pot legalization and then claim, they are not using it so they remain morally upright.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
Obama snubs speaking to BoyscoutsGam197,
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
It already changed. Homosexuality is to be viewed as equal to heterosexuality. Homosexual males will be tenting and showering with the other boys. Try that with girls.I think the bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend summed up things very nicely in his response:
As the new policy currently stands, I see no reason to prohibit our parishes from sponsoring Boy Scout troops. At the same time, it is critical that we be vigilant on how this new policy is interpreted and implemented.
We certainly need to keep both eyes open going forward. Things very well could shift in directions that Catholics cannot follow. But we’re not there yet.
I know many seem to want to paint it as a forgone conclusion that things definitely will shift in such directions in light of this one policy change. I for one do not wish to adopt such a fatalist, defeatist attitude. Until that actually happens, I say we stay and fight. The future ain’t written in stone. Let’s not succumb to the lie that it is inevitable.
The documents clarify what the CCC says. People keep quoting the CCC and give their private interpretation which makes all discrimination unjust and makes the disordered inclination of little relevance simply because it is not formal sin.Why do posters keep citing the CDF document as though it somehow proves the point that the BSA policy change is against Catholic teaching? Do we imagine the bishops and NCCS missed that document? Do we think that those who want to stick with the Boy Scout program in their parish must disagree with the CDF statement?
I think we all agree with what the CDF says. But we need to be careful not to read the document as though it were written with precisely this BSA policy change in mind. This policy change is not legislation from a civil authority.
Again, look at what this bishops are saying.
No it does not help. Denying membership to one who self proclaims disordered desires is not contrary to Catholic teaching.IMHO, kicking a boy to the curb just because he tells you he has SSA is against Catholic teaching.
Does that help?
Really? Since when does the church kick out someone for temptations?No it does not help. Denying membership to one who self proclaims disordered desires is not contrary to Catholic teaching.
You are reading much more into the policy change than I am. There is nothing that stipulates that homosexuality and heterosexuality are to be viewed as equal.It already changed. Homosexuality is to be viewed as equal to heterosexuality. Homosexual males will be tenting and showering with the other boys. Try that with girls.
The change was wrong and politically motivated. People are trying to spin it as no big deal. If it is no big deal why was the previous policy changed?
The Church can and does kick out someone for PROMOTING a temptation as normal. Especially to an impressionable young child. Have you read the CDF statement?Really? Since when does the church kick out someone for temptations?
I think it would depend on the context. Undoubtedly, few bishops would now assign any kind of minister to parish work who admitted to temptations to pedophilia.Really? Since when does the church kick out someone for temptations?
So since the BSA policy is not promoting homosexuality as normal, there is no problem.The Church can and does kick out someone for PROMOTING a temptation as normal. Especially to an impressionable young child. Have you read the CDF statement?
I am not talking about homosexual acts. The BSA is promoting same sex attraction as normal. Please read the CDF statement.So since the BSA policy is not promoting homosexuality as normal, there is no problem.
I have read that CDF statement many times over the years. I have also read the BSA policy change and their statement upon its release. Nothing indicates that the BSA is “promoting same sex attraction as normal.” That is an assertion that needs to be proven with evidence.I am not talking about homosexual acts. The BSA is promoting same sex attraction as normal. Please read the CDF statement.
It is not a Church and the Church had no problem with the policy before it changed.Really? Since when does the church kick out someone for temptations?
True and not only that but the Church does not encourage people to publicly declare their disordered desires.I think it would depend on the context. Undoubtedly, few bishops would now assign any kind of minister to parish work who admitted to temptations to pedophilia.