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.
The context is limited to parish life. This context is clearly so important that it prefaces the actual statement.

We are not talking about parish life.

That is something else entirely. She does not actively and universally discourage it in non-parochial settings either.

Thus the suggestion that it is a private matter has 1) No moral basis, and 2) Is irrelevant to those who disclose publicly for reasons other than seeking affirmation.

Where did I deny the push for the change?

Indeed. So?
What Catholic principle teaches self identifying by one’s disordered inclination serves the common good in most situations? The point is clearly unless their is a good reason this information is not necessary as a matter of common practice.
 
What Catholic principle teaches self identifying by one’s disordered inclination serves the common good in most situations?
Did I claim there was one? No, ergo strawman.
The point is clearly unless their is a good reason this information is not necessary as a matter of common practice.
Which applies equally to every single decision ever.
 
The change will not actually impose acceptance of homosexuality as a requirement to be a Scout. But especially in light of the recent gains by gay rights advocates nationwide, it may ultimately come down to the same thing.
 
If a parish is sponsoring a youth organization, whether it be BSA, GSUSA, or something else, then yes, we are talking about parish life.
Not quite. There are several layers of this issue:
  1. The morality of the policy at the most fundamental level (i.e. independent of Church sponsorship).
  2. The policy at the parochial level.
The USCCB document clearly only applies to the second layer. Even then, it would only be relevant in the troop is being used as a forum for coming out, which is really against BSA policy anyway.
 
I think it is reasonable to state that youth groups that are sponsored by a parish are part of parish life. If I understand the BSA charter system correctly (which I may not because I am not a member of the BSA nor have I ever been), then a parish that charters a BSA troop actually owns the unit. I don’t see how that is anything but parish life.
 
I think it is reasonable to state that youth groups that are sponsored by a parish are part of parish life. If I understand the BSA charter system correctly (which I may not because I am not a member of the BSA nor have I ever been), then a parish that charters a BSA troop actually owns the unit. I don’t see how that is anything but parish life.
I already addressed this in my previous post.
 
Did I claim there was one? No, ergo strawman.

Which applies equally to every single decision ever.
You want to make a pedantic legal argument out of some guidelines given by the bishops. But, they were not making a legalistic argument. Rather, they say it is not prudent to make this disorientation public knowledge. If you disagree my suggestion is to write to your bishop and receive guidance.

Are they saying you must never reveal this information in public? No, but that is not evidence we need to make this disorder central to our identity.
 
There’s a difference between struggling with same-sex attractions and coming out as gay. In general to be gay means not just to admit to same-sex attractions but to consider them good, wholesome and an indispensably important part of one’s self-identity. To be gay also normally means that one shares the values of the gay subculture.
That’s the nub of the thing where Catholics are concerned. Sinners are welcomed to the hospital (that is the Church). Please refrain from spreading infections to other patients, inhibiting the treatments of others and advocating that certain maladies are beneficial and should be promoted.

I have considered “gay” as a political term that implies advocacy. But it is a short word more easily used when the topic comes up than alternative, less political, identifiers.

In vogue now is that “coming out” is a courageous thing to do – provided that one is not “coming out” as a sinner or someone who wants to overcome a temptation, live a celibate life or (as the case may be) live up to the promises made in a heterosexual marriage to spouse and children.

Public confession was in vogue in the early Church, emphasized sometimes with sackcloth, ashes, and a ritual standing outside the church doors for a time and entreating the Church to let one back in (in some cases, various sins). Today private confession is the rule in most cases. And quietly beginning again without a “coming out” (whatever one’s sins might be) being necessary or even desirable is a better option. Except perhaps where doing so directly helps others (Alcoholics Anonymous and its Catholic counterpart orgs like Calix come to mind here).

calixsociety.org/ < (Motto: " …* substituting the cup that stupifies with the one that sanctifies") *
“A.A. restores your health and keeps you from an early grave. Calix saves your soul and puts you on the road to heaven.”
William J. Montroy, a founder of the Calix Society
I am not a member of those groups nor of …

catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0038.html

… these Catholic groups dedicated to helping other constituencies:

catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0038.html
Courage and Encourage
FR. JOHN HARVEY
Courage is the Catholic Church’s only pontifically approved ministry which is specifically committed to providing spiritual support for persons with same-sex attraction who are striving to live chastely, offering help to grow in understanding with others toward living more fully the Church’s teachings.
… but I am grateful that the Church is ministering to us all in our weaknesses.

There would seem to be more societal “push back” against this last group as versus
the groups combatting alcoholism; as ADVOCATES for alcoholism are less organized and operate more independently. Even companies that sell alcohol are making commercials warning of alcohol’s potential dangers.

There are not “alcoholic pride” parades these days (perhaps as close as US society came to THAT was when many lobbied to end prohibition - and even then Alcoholism as a lifestyle, though a reality for many, was not justified but done in the shadows until some had lost all sense of shame and were publicly drunk and visible).

I wonder if with this change in the Boy Scout rules, scout leaders might talk more freely about the dangers of sexuality. From VD to AIDS to legal expectations of fathers, etc.

Or would such leaders be sued and hounded, branded as bigots and ruined?

It would take quite a bit of courage to risk such for the benefits of the next generation.
And the risk might not be one’s own, but risking the organization’s resources as well –
as unscrupulous litigants go for "deep pockets’ sometimes - like when the Church, rather than the perps, were sued concerning matters that the Church taught AGAINST (and hence was a co-victim not a co-conspiritor).

Complicity of individual enablers notwithstanding, whatever their rank.
 
You want to make a pedantic legal argument out of some guidelines given by the bishops. But, they were not making a legalistic argument. Rather, they say it is not prudent to make this disorientation public knowledge.
I am not making a pedantic legal argument out of anything. The document is clear. Had the bishops meant to write that it is not prudent to make homosexuality public knowledge, they would have used that language, which already has a precedent in other Church documents. The bishops instead wrote that in the context of parish life, homosexuality should not be disclosed. They obviously mean exactly what they wrote, which is in no way identical to “it is not prudent to make this disorientation public knowledge,” a suggestion that can be found nowhere in Church documents.
 
Not quite. There are several layers of this issue:
  1. The morality of the policy at the most fundamental level (i.e. independent of Church sponsorship).
  2. The policy at the parochial level.
The USCCB document clearly only applies to the second layer. Even then, it would only be relevant in the troop is being used as a forum for coming out, which is really against BSA policy anyway.
I agree with those who say it is premature to reject the Boy Scouts. But it is not wrong for cautious Catholics and pastors to cut those ties. Even Bishops are not totally trusting of the BSA because they are keeping a watchful eye on updates coming from them. After all, some of us have lived long enough to see what happens when there has been a compromise with certain moral issues.
 
Threads over 1,000 posts are closed for technical reasons.

Thank you all for participating!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top