Boy Scouts to allow gay youths to join

  • Thread starter Thread starter EmperorNapoleon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ringil said:
Homosexual acts are disordered as they are sinful and against the moral order. Homosexuality is not disordered.

It’s an important designation to make. 👍
Click to expand...
The distinction is that homosexual acts are sinful, while homosexuality itself is not.

But homosexuality itself IS a moral disorder
  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...
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html
 
OrangeOwl said:
Am I missing something here? Has the Church specifically said BSA’s actions are wrong?
Click to expand...
Not per se, but here are some examples of discrimination that is NOT unjust’
  1. 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.
Click to expand...
The Archdiocese of the Military, for example, advocated for a retention of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy for the military, in part because of the close quarters that the military live in., so it’s not a stretch to extend that to scout camps.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html
No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.
Click to expand...
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

So we have to ask ourselves, is this what the BSA is now proposing. It used to.
 
ringil said:
Homosexual acts are disordered as they are sinful and against the moral order. Homosexuality is not disordered.

It’s an important designation to make. 👍
Click to expand...
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

You are absolutely, 100%, unequivocally wrong.

Homosexual inclinations are, in of themselves, objectively disordered.

From the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

Declaration on certain questions concerning sexual ethics – Persona humana (1975)
In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.
Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons – Homosexualitatis problema (1986)
3. Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being “intrinsically disordered”, and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, $4).

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil;** and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder**.
Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons, July 23, 1992
10. “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.
  1. 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.
  2. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. no. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.
  3. 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.
    Ringil, I am surprised that you didn’t know that.
 
Brendan said:
Not per se, but here are some examples of discrimination that is NOT unjust’

The Archdiocese of the Military, for example, advocated for a retention of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy for the military, in part because of the close quarters that the military live in., so it’s not a stretch to extend that to scout camps.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html
Click to expand...
I figured that where this is leading. I do wonder if children should be treated with “kid-gloves” as it were. This is after all about allowing gay scouts, not gay team leaders.

So would everyone be cool with it if the gay kids slept in their own tents? Should gay kids not be allowed in schools because of gym class and public showers?

Obviously, part of me is being glib. … But where do you draw the line?
 
Corki said:
This whole deal is very sad. I expect that a lot of parents here in the “bible belt” will be pulling thier kids. What is even sadder is that all troops must abide by this, even the ones sponsored by diocese, parishes or other Church groups. I expect that there will be quite a few that pull away just like they did with the Girl Scouts.
Click to expand...
But the decision came down in Texas, I think the BSA saw dollar signs and the higher up executives are well paid, we went through this part before in one of these threads. 6 figure incomes.
 
One conservative forum on the web is so busy, you can’t get into it, I’d wager it’s about this topic.
 
is it inappropriate to allow a boy sexually attracted to the opposite sex to share a tent while camping ?
 
Lest anyone thinks the National Catholic Committee on Scouting is jumping for joy about the decision, here is their response …

REACTION TO POLICY CHANGE IN MEMBERSHIP STANDARDS FOR THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA

Note: I highlighted the word “promoting” because this is the gray area that could cause conflict.
It seems to me this might need “adequate time to study its effects.”.
Individuals who are open and avowed homosexuals promoting and engaging in homosexual conduct are not living lives consistent with Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
Since the change in policy will not take effect until January 1, 2014, the National Catholic Committee on Scouting has adequate time to study its effects.
Click to expand...
 
gracepoole said:
Actually, it’s not. My conscience is fully informed.
Click to expand...
Really?
[1783](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1783.htm’)😉 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
Click to expand...
1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and** the divine law** or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.
Click to expand...
[1792](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1792.htm’)😉 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
[1793](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1793.htm’)😉 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder.** One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience. **
Click to expand...
 
april32010 said:
is it inappropriate to allow a boy sexually attracted to the opposite sex to share a tent while camping ?
Click to expand...
As far as I am aware, Boy Scouts do much more than sleep in tents with each other. Again, as long as the gay kid sleeps in his own tent, is there any problem?
 
So does this mean that if a parish currently sponsors a Boy Scout Troop or allows the troop to meet at its facilities, the parish will no longer be doing so?
 
If anti gay people want to be taken seriously when they say that “It isn’t about bigotry, looking down on gays, oppression, or homophobia, we just want to “protect” marriage” then they must stand on the side of full inclusion in other areas of society. Wanting to keep kids out of scouting doesn’t “protect” marriage, it just makes it clear that you don’t want to be around gay people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top