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.
I have taken the time to read through all 60+ pages of comments and I want to point out a few things.
  • I like pnewton’s fighting spirit. He wants to preserve/restore what was once an institution that lead boys to be men of God. I understand his position and I wish him all the luck. I disagree with his position but I will no longer try to convince him to abandon his fight.
  • I recommend anyone who has not read Dave McGrath’s comments earlier in this thread, to do so. If you have any reservations about the evil that is behind this policy change, his comments should make it very clear.
  • The bishops have yet to address how this policy change places a “near occasion of sin” out there for the “gay” troops, or how this may scandalize other young impressionable boys. If the BSA tries to deal with the NOOS (near occasion of sin) issue with new camp guidelines, separating the “gays” from the others, then discrimination lawsuits are bound to happen. If they don’t change the guidelines, then the NOOS issue is very much in play. I am sure the bishops are waiting to see how the camping guidelines will change, if they do, before making a collective decision. My thought is that it does not really matter and that the BSA has put itself in a position where it can’t win. IMO, either way it goes, it will perish.
  • Dave McGrath has helped make clear to me what I have considered for some time now. I always wondered how a “re-evangelization” was going to happen with so much sin around, especially when we don’t hear about sin and its consequences anymore. My thought was that Satan has compromised so many families and has clouded their judgment. Dave made a comment about how most people change their attitude towards “gays” when they are personally related to one. This is so true and can be said about any sin or disorder. The human nature is to love but our fallen nature has distorted our understanding of love. One of the reasons Christ died on the cross was to show us how to love, yet we still fail. Our distorted love looks to tolerate people and their sin instead of trying to help separate the person from the sin.
Msgr. Pope posted a great article that gets to the root of what I am trying to say. The churches have de-emphasized sin so much that we don’t, as a whole, comprehend the reason why a savior is needed.

blog.adw.org/2013/06/always-remember-a-homily-for-the-11th-sunday-of-the-year/

Dave McGrath is in what we call a “conflict of interest” when it deals with the BSA and with him imposing his views on the natural law. The devil seeks to “compromise” each family with sin, and then have the family accept the sin out of a false sense of “peace” and “love”. Dave is not the only one to fall victim. IMO, most families with a homosexual in them are usually very tepid about the situation. They may not like it but accept the situation as it is. They never speak against it in church ministries because if they did, they would be “condemning” a loved one in the same breath. I believe this goes for those families that have a member that use contraception and/or practice fornication, just to name a couple more. These families have a clouded judgment about these sins and either remain silent on them or try to change the Church’s teaching.

This is where we are today. There are so many families that have been compromised with serious sin that one is pretty much looked at as being “judgmental” whenever he steps out and says something controversial.

Satan is winning the fight right now. I know Christ wins in the end but remember, Christ has to return for the victory to be His. We are not and will not win this fight without His return. Revelation tells us that He will return before all of mankind is lost. This is not good and shows that the power of evil will have its way with most. I have heard within and without this thread that “where sin abounds, grace abounds the more”, but this cannot mean what those that use it mean. If it did, then grace would overcome sin and Christ would have no need to return. For me, grace always abounds more than sin, but mankind refuses to use it, submit to Christ, and fails to overcome the sin in his life. So yes, grace abounds more than sin, but sin is chosen more by mankind. I am not advocating throwing in the towel. We must fight for what is God’s and we must start at home, with ourselves and with those whom we steward.

And as the family goes, so does the world. If we want to “right” the world, we have to get back to being families that dedicate our lives and children to God. We have to promote sexual purity, religious vocations, respect for life, and a call to personal holiness. We have got to use “holy boldness” and root these vices out from our families. It will take generations to see a major change in society, but it can be done. Instead of reaching for the “fruit” of this world, we need to seek a supernatural joy that can only be quenched by the Divine Creator.

This needs to be done in humility and with an acceptance of suffering.

Pax Christi
 
I have taken the time to read through all 60+ pages of comments and I want to point out a few things.
  • I like pnewton’s fighting spirit. He wants to preserve/restore what was once an institution that lead boys to be men of God. I understand his position and I wish him all the luck. I disagree with his position but I will no longer try to convince him to abandon his fight.
  • I recommend anyone who has not read Dave McGrath’s comments earlier in this thread, to do so. If you have any reservations about the evil that is behind this policy change, his comments should make it very clear.
  • The bishops have yet to address how this policy change places a “near occasion of sin” out there for the “gay” troops, or how this may scandalize other young impressionable boys. If the BSA tries to deal with the NOOS (near occasion of sin) issue with new camp guidelines, separating the “gays” from the others, then discrimination lawsuits are bound to happen. If they don’t change the guidelines, then the NOOS issue is very much in play. I am sure the bishops are waiting to see how the camping guidelines will change, if they do, before making a collective decision. My thought is that it does not really matter and that the BSA has put itself in a position where it can’t win. IMO, either way it goes, it will perish.
  • Dave McGrath has helped make clear to me what I have considered for some time now. I always wondered how a “re-evangelization” was going to happen with so much sin around, especially when we don’t hear about sin and its consequences anymore. My thought was that Satan has compromised so many families and has clouded their judgment. Dave made a comment about how most people change their attitude towards “gays” when they are personally related to one. This is so true and can be said about any sin or disorder. The human nature is to love but our fallen nature has distorted our understanding of love. One of the reasons Christ died on the cross was to show us how to love, yet we still fail. Our distorted love looks to tolerate people and their sin instead of trying to help separate the person from the sin.
Msgr. Pope posted a great article that gets to the root of what I am trying to say. The churches have de-emphasized sin so much that we don’t, as a whole, comprehend the reason why a savior is needed.

blog.adw.org/2013/06/always-remember-a-homily-for-the-11th-sunday-of-the-year/

Dave McGrath is in what we call a “conflict of interest” when it deals with the BSA and with him imposing his views on the natural law. The devil seeks to “compromise” each family with sin, and then have the family accept the sin out of a false sense of “peace” and “love”. Dave is not the only one to fall victim. IMO, most families with a homosexual in them are usually very tepid about the situation. They may not like it but accept the situation as it is. They never speak against it in church ministries because if they did, they would be “condemning” a loved one in the same breath. I believe this goes for those families that have a member that use contraception and/or practice fornication, just to name a couple more. These families have a clouded judgment about these sins and either remain silent on them or try to change the Church’s teaching.

This is where we are today. There are so many families that have been compromised with serious sin that one is pretty much looked at as being “judgmental” whenever he steps out and says something controversial.

Satan is winning the fight right now. I know Christ wins in the end but remember, Christ has to return for the victory to be His. We are not and will not win this fight without His return. Revelation tells us that He will return before all of mankind is lost. This is not good and shows that the power of evil will have its way with most. I have heard within and without this thread that “where sin abounds, grace abounds the more”, but this cannot mean what those that use it mean. If it did, then grace would overcome sin and Christ would have no need to return. For me, grace always abounds more than sin, but mankind refuses to use it, submit to Christ, and fails to overcome the sin in his life. So yes, grace abounds more than sin, but sin is chosen more by mankind. I am not advocating throwing in the towel. We must fight for what is God’s and we must start at home, with ourselves and with those whom we steward.

And as the family goes, so does the world. If we want to “right” the world, we have to get back to being families that dedicate our lives and children to God. We have to promote sexual purity, religious vocations, respect for life, and a call to personal holiness. We have got to use “holy boldness” and root these vices out from our families. It will take generations to see a major change in society, but it can be done. Instead of reaching for the “fruit” of this world, we need to seek a supernatural joy that can only be quenched by the Divine Creator.

This needs to be done in humility and with an acceptance of suffering.

Pax Christi
What you describe is desensitization. Also, an admixture of emotionalism. You are quite correct. That is why we have the attitudes we have today.
 
Is that why Pope John Paul II devoted a substantial part of “Fides et Ratio” to promoting and encouraging the study of the Angelic Doctor. (paras 44 and 45)

I fail to see how Pope John Paul II’s words “precisely because it stays consistently within the horizon of universal, objective and transcendent truth, his thought scales “heights unthinkable to human intelligence” matches with your assessment that it must be take through the lens of time.

That seems contradictory, either it is universal and objective, or it is relative to time.

Do you have a source that advocates your view of St. Thomas, that his method and conclusions are subject to the 'lens of time"
St Thomas said that abortion was OK up to the time movement was felt. “lens of time”
 
What does this mean?
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.

Were in this section is it talking about the possible sexual orientation of children?or thier exclusion from any aspect of the life of the church?
This section applies to adults and children that could be placed with them.
It is saying that sexual orientation can be taken into account, not the only deciding factor.
It is specific to cases.
Once again, how does this section trump the catichism.
 
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.

Were in this section is it talking about the possible sexual orientation of children?or thier exclusion from any aspect of the life of the church?
This section applies to adults and children that could be placed with them.
It is saying that sexual orientation can be taken into account, not the only deciding factor.
It is specific to cases.
Once again, how does this section trump the catichism.
It does not contradict the CCC. It explains more. The old policy from the scouts was not deemed immoral by the Church for reasons mentioned several times already. The new policy can certainly be criticized and in doing so one can easily prove the Church endorsed the last policy.
 
St Thomas said that abortion was OK up to the time movement was felt. “lens of time”
That is not true. I hope you are making that statement out of ignorance because otherwise it would be slander.

We know that St. Thomas opposed contraception (Summa contra gentiles 3.122), a fortiori what he wrote about contraception would also apply to abortion.
 
It does not contradict the CCC. It explains more. The old policy from the scouts was not deemed immoral by the Church for reasons mentioned several times already. The new policy can certainly be criticized and in doing so one can easily prove the Church endorsed the last policy.
I think lest we give the Boy Scouts too much credit for lining their policy up with what we think is Catholic doctrine that we remember that some of the same bishops that have said they will continue this partnership* opposed* the recent changes. We most definitely can (I think we should) criticize the new policy, and then decide from there what course is best.
 
“We can live with this policy” = COMPROMISE

COMPROMISE
= Concession and accommodation in a serious matter that places immature boys at risk through close association.

Where the old policy did not flaunt disorder, even if it was there, the new policy must allow it.

This is **not **love of our children!
 
Suppose one or more bishops recommended that Catholics leave mainstream scouting for something else. I’m betting that most of their subjects would not follow that recommendation.
 
Suppose one or more bishops recommended that Catholics leave mainstream scouting for something else. I’m betting that most of their subjects would not follow that recommendation.
I bet they would. In fact, I bet they would be more open than those that oppose their decision to maintain the partnerships with BSA. With one exception, all those here that are still going to be involved in scouting have stuck close to what their bishop has done. On the other hand, the very existence of this thread is a monument to the objection many have with the statement of a bishop in the original post.
 
I think there is a difference from people continuing to do what they were doing already on the one hand, a people making a huge change on the other. I don’t think one can conclude from the current situation that a majority of the faithful would drop out of the BSA at the recommendation of their bishops.
 
I think there is a difference from people continuing to do what they were doing already on the one hand, a people making a huge change on the other. I don’t think one can conclude from the current situation that a majority of the faithful would drop out of the BSA at the recommendation of their bishops.
I guess disagreement is academic as they are not recommending this action.
 
That is not true. I hope you are making that statement out of ignorance because otherwise it would be slander.

We know that St. Thomas opposed contraception (Summa contra gentiles 3.122), a fortiori what he wrote about contraception would also apply to abortion.
Ok I’ll clarify, From Catholic Answers
This is only half true. Aquinas did say an unborn baby receives a soul 40 or 80 days after conception, depending on gender. But he also said abortion is a violation of natural law and is always wrong, no matter when a soul may be infused into the developing child’s body.
The 40/80-day view is based on the writings of Aristotle, who said a child becomes human at “formation,” the point at which it first “has a human form”–that is, when it looks human. He said this was 40 days for boys and 80 days for girls. Probably this distinction was based on the point at which genitals could be observed on miscarried children. Keep in mind that fetal embryology was then a restricted science; all observations could be made only by the naked eye, the microscope being in the distant future.
Aquinas accepted the idea of formation, which he said occurs when a child receives a soul. But since abortion violates natural law whether or not the child has a soul, Aquinas taught that abortion is always gravely wrong.
Today we have better scientific tools than did Aristotle or Aquinas. We know unborn males and females look human at the same time, and we know they are human long before they look human. Modern science verifies that the unborn have a human genetic code from conception, and this is when their humanity begins.
The ancients did not know about the genetic code, of course–we had to wait for Gregor Mendel, a 19th-century monk for that–and relied on outward appearances to identify species and gender. Appearance was the best test available to them, but it was hardly reliable.
Aquinas overlooked the fact that the biblical view of the soul cannot be squared with Aristotle’s. In Psalm 51:5 David says he was a sinner from conception, but sinfulness is a spiritual quality, so David must have had a spirit, a soul, from conception.
The point still is that Thomas was still a man of his times and could only understand the world from the viewpoint of when he was alive. So he could not possibly be correct on everthing he wrote or taught about.
Even though this quote says that Thomas taught that abortion was always wrong he did not consider it a human life until 40 and 80 days. It is understandable that he would oppose contraception this it would prevent the formation of life.
He was in further error as the comment states in the last pararaph.
 
It does not contradict the CCC. It explains more. The old policy from the scouts was not deemed immoral by the Church for reasons mentioned several times already. The new policy can certainly be criticized and in doing so one can easily prove the Church endorsed the last policy.
The problem is that there was really no ‘old policy’. The only policy the scouts had related to adults and restricting thier membership. Being a leader for 30 years there has never been an issue of not accepting children in the program. The policy that has been developed basically reflects what has always been the case.
The Church can support the policy because it does fall in line with the CCC. If the scouts in the future changes it’s policy concerning adults, then the issue for the Church and indeed it position woould have to be revised.
 
I think lest we give the Boy Scouts too much credit for lining their policy up with what we think is Catholic doctrine that we remember that some of the same bishops that have said they will continue this partnership* opposed* the recent changes. We most definitely can (I think we should) criticize the new policy, and then decide from there what course is best.
I agree with you. I have yet to read that any bishop said this change is perfect and corrects the old policy which was unjust. What I have read is that the policy was changed due to nefarious influences. The bishops read the change and said we can work with it. That is not a glowing endorsement. It is just saying within Catholic teaching we can find a way to use the policy without violating Catholic teaching.

Unfortunately, I read some that claim opposing the new policy is unjust which makes no sense given that the old policy was different and morally licit.
 
The problem is that there was really no ‘old policy’. The only policy the scouts had related to adults and restricting thier membership. Being a leader for 30 years there has never been an issue of not accepting children in the program. The policy that has been developed basically reflects what has always been the case.
The Church can support the policy because it does fall in line with the CCC. If the scouts in the future changes it’s policy concerning adults, then the issue for the Church and indeed it position woould have to be revised.
This is a very interesting position. If there is no change then there would be no debate.I would think the bishops and others who have been commenting on this topic should be made aware of this non change.
 
The problem is that there was really no ‘old policy’. The only policy the scouts had related to adults and restricting thier membership. Being a leader for 30 years there has never been an issue of not accepting children in the program. The policy that has been developed basically reflects what has always been the case.
The Church can support the policy because it does fall in line with the CCC. If the scouts in the future changes it’s policy concerning adults, then the issue for the Church and indeed it position woould have to be revised.
This is what puzzles me. If the new policy basically reflects what has always been the case, then why the need for the new policy?

I agree that the written text of the new policy is in line with the Catechism. Yet, given the unyielding advocacy on the part of many in the gay rights movement who see the whole world in terms of gay rights, one has to wonder if in fact, things will just settle down. Does the BSA just go from an implicit policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” to a policy of “ok to tell, but don’t talk about it any further?” I doubt that it will end there.

Perhaps “sexual orientation” will necessarily become a greater topic of awareness within the BSA. That would be a shame, given that BSA is not and ought not to be an organization about sexual awareness. Providing masculine role models is a good thing; affirming sexual disorder is not.
 
This is what puzzles me. If the new policy basically reflects what has always been the case, then why the need for the new policy?
Why not change it if it is functionally obsolete?
I agree that the written text of the new policy is in line with the Catechism. Yet, given the unyielding advocacy on the part of many in the gay rights movement who see the whole world in terms of gay rights, one has to wonder if in fact, things will just settle down. Does the BSA just go from an implicit policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” to a policy of “ok to tell, but don’t talk about it any further?” I doubt that it will end there.
The BSA has the ability to determine when it will end.
Perhaps “sexual orientation” will necessarily become a greater topic of awareness within the BSA. That would be a shame, given that BSA is not and ought not to be an organization about sexual awareness. Providing masculine role models is a good thing; affirming sexual disorder is not.
Agreed, which is why the BSA is clear that talks about sex and sexuality have no place within the BSA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top