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.
From the USCCB: Ministry to persons with homosexual inclinations: Guidelines for Pastoral Care usccb.org/about/doctrine/publications/homosexual-inclination-guidelines-pastoral-care.cfm

“For some persons, revealing their homosexual tendencies to certain close friends, family members, a spiritual director, confessor, or members of a Church support group may provide some spiritual and emotional help and aid them in their growth in the Christian life. In the context of parish life, however, general public self- disclosures are not helpful and should not be encouraged.” (my emphasis)
 
zab said:
From the USCCB: Ministry to persons with homosexual inclinations: Guidelines for Pastoral Care usccb.org/about/doctrine/publications/homosexual-inclination-guidelines-pastoral-care.cfm

“For some persons, revealing their homosexual tendencies to certain close friends, family members, a spiritual director, confessor, or members of a Church support group may provide some spiritual and emotional help and aid them in their growth in the Christian life. In the context of parish life, however, general public self- disclosures are not helpful and should not be encouraged.” (my emphasis)
Click to expand...
This sort of goes along with thoughts on the Pride Parade as well in the St. Andrews’ thread under Catholic news.
 
From Fr. Z:

For decades our society has been slowly but surely and purposely shifted by those in control of the mainstream media and entertainment industry. At first, because of the rise of AIDS, active homosexuals were constantly portrayed as innocent, though perhaps quirky, victims. Once the notion of homosexuality was shifted from its moorings and a new status was created in the minds of the public, another shift took place in the media. Now, TV shows and movies are saturated with homosexuals who are far more sophisticated, with it, intelligent, good looking than their more dysfunctional heterosexual counterparts. Victim time is over. It is cool to be “gay”.

For years an artificial sub-culture was carefully crafted and now it is busting out into a “new normal”.

But – contrary to popular opinion – human nature and God’s revealed truths have not changed. Homosexuality is not normal. Christ’s priesthood and homosexuality converging is like pushing misaligned magnets together. It can be done, but it requires force. It is no wonder that some of these misaligned clerics do gawdawful things, especially to other clerics. They are out of sorts with themselves at their deepest core. How they must suffer! That suffering will sometimes come out sideways. Homosexual violent crime is often the most brutal and bloody that the police see. Homosexual clerics usually won’t be physically violent. Their conflicts manifest in other ways.

Homosexuals who are struggling to be chaste need to be treated with respect, but part of that respect requires the affirmation of the Word of God. Fr. Z touches on the great danger of homosexuality becoming a “new normal.” This is why the Vatican said this:

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).
  1. “As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfilment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood” (no. 7).
  2. In reference to the homosexual movement, the letter states: “One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination” (no. 9).
And it is for that reason that the Vatican also 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.” This would include the Boy Scouts.

WARNING: Do not attack someone for simply repeating the words of clerics. And certainly do not attack the clerics.
 
Cat_Herder said:
Dr. Peters did not take into account the CDF document or the question of the near occasion of sin; therefore his analysis is incomplete.
Click to expand...
Here is another glaring hole in the faith formation of today’s Catholic. If you look back at the endless gay threads you will see time and time again where a self-identified Catholic will argue that only sexual *acts *are sinful. Nothing is ever said about willfully surrendering to temptation and illicit pleasures that occur in the mind which, if not rejected, are sins against purity.

Goodness!!! What has happened to our consciences. And it deeply troubles me that the bishops who have said “we can live with this policy” have not addressed this either.
 
The reader comments posted below the “Invisible Boy” article also provided some thoughtful insights which I found helpful. I have to agree with one poster who said that what boys who see themselves as gay need is to be affirmed as boys and affirmed in their masculinity. Indeed, perhaps that is what is happening under the current policy. But it is essential that they be affirmed as a boy and a scout, not as gay.
 
JimG said:
The reader comments posted below the “Invisible Boy” article also provided some thoughtful insights which I found helpful. I have to agree with one poster who said that what boys who see themselves as gay need is to be affirmed as boys and affirmed in their masculinity. Indeed, perhaps that is what is happening under the current policy. But it is essential that they be affirmed as a boy and a scout, not as gay.
Click to expand...
Not sure if this author was ever in Boy Scouts, but we don’t put on dances or ice cream socials or other events were we encourage boys and girls to “mingle”

We do have a coed branch, Venturing, but they don’t do that either
 
gilliam said:
Not sure if this author was ever in Boy Scouts, but we don’t put on dances or ice cream socials or other events were we encourage boys and girls to “mingle”

We do have a coed branch, Venturing, but they don’t do that either
Click to expand...
Yes, someone mentioned that in the comments section as well. Also the canon lawyer posted a follow up to his original article.
 
Well!

After reading the letter from the CEO (?) and finding out that it is not a majority decision, and that they’ve alwaays had a sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, I now believe that, yes, the homosexualists got their foot in the door.

So I will take a “wait and see” position. And I’ll pray that the Scoutmasters enforce the chaste morality that the Scouts supposedly endorse. Or that the Scouts who disagree with the policy break away. How does “Chaste Scouts of America” sound? 😃

God’s will be done.

Tigg said,
…see time and time again where a self-identified Catholic will argue that only sexual acts are sinful. Nothing is ever said about willfully surrendering to temptation and illicit pleasures that occur in the mind which, if not rejected, are sins against purity.
Click to expand...
Well, I’m one of them. I’ve always assumed that everyone knows that chastity is in the mind as well as the body, so it doesn’t need saying. This is partly from the many posts I’ve seen from those fighting sin that speak about the thoughts as well as the sin, because they know where the thoughts lead. Perhaps I’ve been mistaken…

Eternal Father, have mercy on us and on the whole world! :crossrc:
 
fix said:
Not to go off the rails but st Thomas does not agree with you here. Where does the Church teach every violation of the sixth commandment is of the exact same gravity?
Click to expand...
Where does it teach that homosexuality is worse than adultery?
 
Cat_Herder said:
George Soros may not be buying you an extravagant caviar dinner on the Catholics United tab, but you are embracing their position and using their tactics…So if you want to carry on this discussion, let’s discuss the ISSUES and the EVIDENCE. No straw men and no name calling.
Click to expand...
Then let me remind you that**I **am not the topic. Your personal attacks are uncalled for. I have taken nothing from Soros. I have never even read a single thing he has written. In know nothing of the CU (whatevet that is). My thoughts are my own. This association is ill-conceived and illogical.Interestingly enough, I am almost exactly in the same position as Dr. Peters in the link above. While I have actually read his blog, I knew nothing of his position on this topic. I would bet that he (like I) know of the Church’s teaching from the CDF and applicable papal encyclical. Disagreement with any poster here is not an indication of ignorance.

Oh, and I have not called anyone any names. That is untrue.
 
JimG said:
Yes, someone mentioned that in the comments section as well. Also the canon lawyer posted a follow up to his original article.
Click to expand...
As I said in another post lawyers want to to look only where they want you to look. The old policy was licit. The new policy is licit. The problem is the policy change did not happen in a vacuum. To stress only the legal understanding of the words on paper is to discount the entire equation and all that want on to garner the change.

I will add that if the old policy was good then rejecting the new policy is morally acceptable.
 
Tigg said:
Here is another glaring hole in the faith formation of today’s Catholic. If you look back at the endless gay threads you will see time and time again where a self-identified Catholic will argue that only sexual *acts *are sinful. Nothing is ever said about willfully surrendering to temptation and illicit pleasures that occur in the mind which, if not rejected, are sins against purity.
Click to expand...
I do not think anyone has ever said that only sexual acts are sinful. I might have missed that part though. However, temptation is** not** sinful. I do not think this, or any other “glaring hole” exist in Dr. Peter’s faith, from what I have read over the years. As you point out, the Catholic bishops have also not condemned temptation as a sin. I do not think they too can be considered “self-identified Catholics”.
 
JimG said:
Just came across this reflection on the BSA decision.
The Invisible Boy
Click to expand...
My response:

This piece is bad.

Let us assume that the BSA is indeed condemning all sexual activity among Scouts (I would suggest that “on Scouting activities” and “within the confines of the law” would be implicit and obvious parameters elided but assumed by the BSA). Elsewhere in BSA policy this is not stated; instead, it is said that sexual activity and discussions etc. have no place in Scouting activity (beyond safety concerns as discussed in the various handbooks).

There is nothing wrong with this policy whatsoever. The BSA does not need to treat every aspect of personal development. It does not offer remedial classes. It does not offer college counseling. It does not offer spiritual direction. Nor should it. It focuses on certain elements of leadership formation. Romantic relationships, the BSA has decided, are not the focus. That is perfectly permissible. Indeed, it is almost necessary: the organization is sponsored by many different religions with many different beliefs about relationships and marriage. Even these do not institutionally make their way into the organization.

The BSA has never acted as a match-making service, or even a dating prep company. Thus Prof. Esolen’s suggestion that “they are the kinds of things that the Boy Scouts of America should be encouraging the boy scouts of America to do, when they are older, by sponsoring ice cream socials and concerts and other events that bring boys and girls together” is absurd. Why on earth should the BSA do this? Its goals, which are, in fact, articulated explicitly, and its values, which are similarly explicitly stated (Oath/Law/Motto/Slogan), have said and say nothing about specific relationships besides the necessity of kindness and courteousness (and other attributes broadly related to human interaction).

If Prof. Esolen wants an organization that brings young men and women together, he is more than welcome to found one himself, or to seek one out (many religious institutions offer this service). But to suggest that the BSA involve itself in the romantic formation of its youth is to tell the organization to fundamentally change its purpose. If his model should be adopted, where could I go to avoid the constant pressure to be involved in a relationship? Where could I go to bond with other men and to develop myself as a person, rather than as a potential husband (which may not even be in my future)? Why would I join an organization for fraternal interaction and growth when it is simply another matchmaking service? I would not hesitate to say that the entire point of the BSA is to provide a space for platonic interaction. Prof. Esolen would take this away and deprive the organization of its purpose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top