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

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_America said:
It’s the fear of being off-putting to Catholics—and losing membership— that keeps the bishop’s mouths shut on many issues.
Click to expand...
That is a rather harsh opinion. Have you heard one bishop every state this is his reasoning or are you just reading into the minds of others the worst motives, contrary to the teaching of the Catechism on rash judgment?
 
Brendan said:
I know what you mean. The boys in my troop not only know what ‘Ad Altare Dei’ means, but can generally quote the rest of the Mass responses as well.

But it is still the point. Limiting the awards to a particular org.
Click to expand...
What I mean is that FNE, and the UIGSE-FSE of which it is a member association, have their own awards for religious achievement, and these are more varied than the awards offered by NCCS or NFCYM.
 
Good Cat we’re on the same page and can agree to disagree 🙂

You support a Catholic youth development program, and I’ll support the Boy Scouts. You can disagree with the change, and I’ll agree with it.

Agree to disagree sounds like a good plan.

Cheers 👍
 
JimG said:
One must of course keep both of these paragraphs in mind.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between having homosexual tendecies and doing homosexual acts.
The catechism is making that difference, as well as recongizing that there is a cause for homesexulity and it is not a choice perhaps made by the individual.

The first paragraph does not trump the message of the second. We as the faithful are called to love, respect, respectfully teach and care for these individuals.
For us to do otherwise, means we are not following the message of Christ. He told Peter to love and care for His sheep, he didn’t exclude homosexuals.

Deacon Frank
 
Cat_Herder said:
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has said:

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.

The Southern Baptists are right.
Click to expand...
What you have quoted concerns the influence of adults over youth, not the other way around.
You can’t pick and choose the Church’s teaching to satify your opinon or beliefs.
If you can tell me were Christ said to take care of His sheep, except the gay ones, then I’ll agree with protestant brothers.
Deacon Frank
 
markomalley said:
People who highlight that particular portion of the passage seem to never notice a couple of things:

This inclination, which is objectively disordered

The inclination of having being sexually attracted to members of the same sex is objectively disordered. It is not normal. It is not oriented toward the natural law. If the inclination is acted upon, it is guaranteed to result in actions that are gravely depraved.

In other words, those who would like us to believe that people who are afflicted with homosexual inclination are perfectly OK, as long as they remain celibate, are plain wrong. The CCC does not teach that. Only the most strained exercise in selective reading can result in that conclusion.

unjust discrimination: does it say all discrimination? No it doesn’t. It just says that every sign of unjust discrimination must be avoided. So it is important to understand what it means by unjust. The CDF pointed some very good guidance out for what does and does not qualify as unjust back in 1992. Since it has been extracted elsewhere in this thread, I’ll just give a link and leave it at that.

Bottom line is that you need to read that extract of the CCC a bit more carefully.
Click to expand...
Bottom line I have and more.
Deacon Frank
 
pnewton said:
Maybe he read it but just didn’t read into it more than was said. The BSA is not an adoption agency. The BSA is not the military. The BSA still allows for *just *discrimination for adult leaders. Please understand that someone who disagrees with your point isn’t necessarily ignorant for that disagreement or disagreeing the the Church or any past pope. It is strictly your opinion of how this is going to apply that the disagreement is with.
Click to expand...
I think your point is a good one to consider but the arguments put forth in the CDF document are valid regardless of the fact that the BSA is not an adoption agency or military. The arguments put forth are sound based off logic and truth which should be applied to any institution or body of law. The statements also hold regardless of whether we are talking about adults or boys. I don’t remember the CDF taking such a nuanced position.

The Church needs to have the wisdom to see when one she is “lying in bed with” has betrayed her. It is time to walk away.
 
FAB said:
What you have quoted concerns the influence of adults over youth, not the other way around.
You can’t pick and choose the Church’s teaching to satify your opinon or beliefs.
If you can tell me were Christ said to take care of His sheep, except the gay ones, then I’ll agree with protestant brothers.
Deacon Frank
Click to expand...
I am interested in hearing your definition of “take care of”. It seems that one would want to take care not to embolden or confirm a person that is oriented toward sin.
 
Archbishop Kurtz supports continued parish involvement with Boy Scouts

Louisville Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz sent a letter to pastors on June 5 encouraging the continued sponsorship of Boy Scouts of America troops even after the organization’s decision to accept openly gay scouts:
“I do not believe that this change in membership policy necessarily contradicts the teaching of the Church, and at this time, I support our continued relationship with the Boy Scouts of America.”

While the Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexual activity is sinful, Kurtz said the church also calls for treating people with dignity regardless of sexual orientation and that the Boy Scout policy calls for chastity among scouts and continues its ban on openly gay leaders.

Kurtz’s statement, echoed by other bishops, comes as religious congregations deliberate on how to respond to the recent change in scouting policy. On Wednesday, the Southern Baptist Convention voiced opposition to the policy change but did not recommend whether congregations should maintain or sever ties with their Boy Scout troops. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also has said it can work with the policy.

And the Scouting Ministry Office of the United Methodist Church said Wednesday that any Scout units dropped by a Southern Baptist congregation “would be warmly welcomed by neighboring United Methodist congregations.”

Here are more excerpts from Kurtz’s letter:
“Several principles of Church teaching are important to consider in this discernment. I am grateful to the National Catholic Committee on Scouting and its episcopal liaison, Bishop Robert Guglielmone, for some very helpful reflections about this issue:
The Catholic Church teaches that those who experience same-sex attraction are always to be treated with dignity and respect, and this is especially important in ministry with vulnerable children and youth. Our parishes, schools, and youth groups welcome and serve both adults and youth with same-sex attraction, and those who experience same-sex attraction should never be ostracized and need proper support and care.
The Church also teaches that sexual acts belong within the marital union of one man and one woman, and that everyone – young, old, married, single, heterosexual and homosexual – is called to chastity, through which we grow in our understanding of love. As advised by the 2006 Bishops document, Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care, young people especially need encouragement and guidance to help them lead chaste lives. We are fortunate that the Boy Scouts of America clearly articulates the expectation of chastity among the scouts in their care and supports the Church’s teaching in this area. The resolution passed by the Boy Scouts of America also contains a very important and helpful distinction between orientation and behavior.
The Church continues to reserve the right to recruit adult leaders whose lifestyles allow them to minister with integrity to those they serve. Thus, adult leaders should be those who strive to lead chaste lives and who are able and willing to both accept and witness to the full teaching of the Church on chastity and charity, including teachings on the sanctity of marriage. This is consistent with our expectation of all pastoral leaders. Obviously vigilance is needed in order to be sure that the Boy Scout troops, as well as all youth ministry programs, fully support Church teaching, and scouting units will continue to have the obligation to provide competent and virtuous adult leaders who follow Church teaching and provide good role models for youth.”

blogs.courier-journal.com/faith/2013/06/13/archbishop-kurtz-supports-continued-parish-involvement-with-boy-scouts/
 
shocktrooper said:
I think your point is a good one to consider but the arguments put forth in the CDF document are valid regardless of the fact that the BSA is not an adoption agency or military. The arguments put forth are sound based off logic and truth which should be applied to any institution or body of law. The statements also hold regardless of whether we are talking about adults or boys. I don’t remember the CDF taking such a nuanced position.
Click to expand...
The list there does not need to be considered exhaustive. Surely it is just a guideline. However, this very reason allows for one to recognize that the BSA does not meet this guideline. Just because the CDF can be applied, by someone like Cat Herder for example, does not mean that it must apply. It does not specify adults, but all the examples give are adult positions. We may well find that some dioceses discontinue association while the majority do not, but I do not think the Church will agree it is time to walk away. As Kenny Rogers put it, “Sometimes you have to fight if you’re a man.”
 
pnewton said:
The list there does not need to be considered exhaustive. Surely it is just a guideline. However, this very reason allows for one to recognize that the BSA does not meet this guideline. Just because the CDF can be applied, by someone like Cat Herder for example, does not mean that it must apply. It does not specify adults, but all the examples give are adult positions. We may well find that some dioceses discontinue association while the majority do not, but I do not think the Church will agree it is time to walk away. As Kenny Rogers put it, “Sometimes you have to fight if you’re a man.”
Click to expand...
None of the statements (reasons or arguments) made in the CDF document below limit themselves to a few specific instances or institutions. They apply to all people at all times since they are rooted in philosophical and theological truths. The arguments are based on sound logic observable to anyone with eyes to see. To take these statements by the CDF and reduce them to “well they don’t apply to the BSA because they did not identify the BSA directly” is to be disingenuous.
From the CDF
Click to expand...
  1. Since “*n the discussion which followed the publication of the (aforementioned) declaration…, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral or even good”, the letter goes on to clarify: “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
Click to expand...
Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed towards those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not” (no. 3).
Click to expand...
  1. “In assessing proposed legislation, the bishops should keep as their uppermost concern the responsibility to defend and promote family life” (no. 17).
Click to expand...
  1. “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.
Click to expand...
  1. 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 homo- sexuality (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.
Click to expand...
  1. 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.
Click to expand...
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).
Click to expand...
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…
Click to expand...
The problem with endorsing the BSA policy is that the troops won’t be able to educate or catechize the scout with SSA. This is different from letting those with SSA become members of Catholic youth groups or other ministries since these ministries can help support, instruct and encourage them in a proper way, aligned with the moral teachings of the Church.
Click to expand...
 
shocktrooper said:
To take these statements by the CDF and reduce them to “well they don’t apply to the BSA because they did not identify the BSA directly” is to be disingenuous.
Click to expand...
They do not apply to the BSA in the sense that they do not necessarily apply. Of course the principles of truth always apply. That is a ginormous strawman. No one is denying eternal truth. However, when I say it does not apply to the BSA I mean that the Catholic Church has not applied this principle to the current situation of the Boy Scouts, as per the letter about which this thread is the topic. It does not apply in the since that Humanae Vitae’s teaching on contraception does not apply to a rock. Not that HV ceased to be true, but that a rock is not the subject of HV.
The problem with endorsing the BSA policy is that the troops won’t be able to educate or catechize the scout with SSA…
Click to expand...
Yes, they can. There is nothing that prohibits this in the new policy. I will further guarantee that it not only can happen, but that it will happen. at least in some Catholic scouting groups.
 
pnewton said:
I don’t think so. You are the first to post this link. I bet no one here has seen it. Can we keep assumptions and strawmen to a minimum? No one is supporting me. I doubt anyone in this article is supporting Gilliam or any bishops mentioned so far.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Such tactics do not further the conversation.
 
pnewton said:
They do not apply to the BSA in the sense that they do not necessarily apply. Of course the principles of truth always apply.
Click to expand...
So you admit, the truths of the CDF’s arguments apply to the BSA, correct? It is not a strawman.

All teachings on morality would not apply to a rock, since morality is between mankind and God. Thankfully, we should both be able to agree that the BSA and its members are not rocks.
pnewton said:
Yes, they can. There is nothing that prohibits this in the new policy. I will further guarantee that it not only can happen, but that it will happen. at least in some Catholic scouting groups.
Click to expand...
Legally, this may be true. But what about when a Catholic BSA troop does catechize on homosexuality and there is an open homosexual in the ranks, and they take offense. The BSA has secured itself from legal action leaving any “discrimination” lawsuit in the laps of the diocese. Is this not possible or likely? Next step for Satan, enroll a homosexual boy into a Catholic BSA troop, solicit some correction discretely, take offense and file a lawsuit.

And I don’t share your thought that the troops will teach the Church’s truths. We don’t even see this behavior from most of the pulpits. Typically when there is someone in the room that others know is in a precarious or sinful position, they don’t bring up the topic for the sake of “peace” and “unity”. Silence seems to be the favorite response for most, well, except for the homosexuals.

Also, how do you address the CDF statement regarding those homosexuals that “come out” as being the same homosexuals that see the lifestyle as normal and acceptable? Why announce having SSA if you see it as disorder? Most do not do this to garner prayers. Most people announce things about themselves when they are seeking affirmation.
 
pnewton said:
I don’t think so. You are the first to post this link. I bet no one here has seen it. Can we keep assumptions and strawmen to a minimum? No one is supporting me. I doubt anyone in this article is supporting Gilliam or any bishops mentioned so far.
Click to expand...
Just send food 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top