C
Captain_America
Guest
What on earth does “marginalized” mean?
Openly gay boys in the Boy Scouts and the Pope's recent message concernig gay clergy
- Status
P
Phemie
Guest
Oh, come on, you know full well what ‘marginalized’ means. When you relegate a certain group of people to the edges of society, not allowing them to participate in things for no good reason, you are marginalizing them.
The Catechism says
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. **They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. **These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Does that mean keep them out of all Catholic organizations?
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
This simply is not true. Like with Pope Francis, it could very well be that BSA did not want to marginalize gays. I strongly believe that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, but I would reach out to them with love, respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Read the CCC.
M
Memaw
Guest
I think they are marginalizing themselves and trying to make those that don’t agree with their lifestyle to be the ones marginalized. We’re supposed to be the ones out of the normal not them. Seems clear to me that the farther the human race gets from true faith in God and His Commandments, they more vile we become. God Bless, Memaw
B
Brendan
Guest
I think the point being made is to find out what Robert means by ‘marginalized’
For example, the CDF document denotes that discrimination in things like military service, adoption, foster care, education and athletic coaching is not unjust.
One would hope that every Catholic concurs with that
The Archdiocese of the Military, for example, opposed the removal of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’
Would you consider the examples given by the CDF to be ‘marginalizing’ gays?
I do not.
J
JimG
Guest
The Catechism creates some confusion in the minds of non-Catholics–and Catholics–with the way that is worded. “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
Yet the USCCB will not allow Catholic adoption agencies to place children with gay couples, and calls such a practice child abuse. Catholic adoption agencies have gone out of business rather than comply with secular “non-discrimination” laws which would require them to do so.
Men with a deep seated homosexual orientation are not eligible for the seminary.
The Church sees gay marriage as impossible and a grave evil.
But the secular world, seeing the way the Catechism reads, will plead for non-discrimination in all these cases which are objectively wrong.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Yes, some clarification is in order, but I think this is what Pope Francis has done in stating that gay clergy ought to not be marginalized; it’s marginalizing them that is an unjust discrimination. .
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
There’s nothing unclear about the wording of the CCC. After all, there are times when “discrimination” is called for, but there are never times when “unjust discrimination” is called for.
As for what we should understand by a boy calling himself “gay”, I myself would be satisfied if a Boy Scouts type group emphasized personal holiness and chastity, and mostly left this issue alone. If a boy does call himself “gay”, I think that is reason for a leader to talk to him gently about what he means by that term. I mean, look, children call themselves all sorts of things, out of a variety of motivations, so the simple term “gay” should not make us run for the hills.
Now if, by calling himself gay, he means that he wants sexual activity with males, and he thinks that this is something that we should all encourage him in, then I think he should not be allowed in the troop. But if he’s just confused, I think that the troop leader can give him a lot of needed direction about how to handle that confusion.
P
Phemie
Guest
Are leaders in the habit of discussing sex with their scouts? If not, why should they discuss being ‘gay’ with the Scout?
F
fix
Guest
I do not think that is true. People can read into it anything they want to. The point is the Church has documents that explain it clearly. The CCC is not a moral theology text. That is why the Vatican puts out more documents to explain things in more detail. Now, do anyone think the Pope rejects those documents?
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
If a scout started calling himself a “pimp” or a “nymphomaniac”, scout leaders would surely discuss this with the scout. Not that I am equating these words with “gay”, but these words could be used – as could “gay” – to indicate the acceptance of sexual sin.
O
Orogeny
Guest
So, if he isn’t really gay, he should be allowed in the Boy Scouts, but if he really is gay, he shouldn’t?
Peace
Tim
P
Phemie
Guest
I know my husband has had gay Scouts in his troop. While they hadn’t proclaimed their SSA at the time, there was no doubt in our minds and they confirmed it once they left high school. At no time was this a problem.
In my community kids are regularly coming out in junior high and I can’t see kicking them out of Scouts for doing so.
K
kmcarl56
Guest
As a parent of twin boys who were very involved in Boy Scouts, I would not have wanted them to be subjected to a homosexual boy who openly flaunts his tendancies. I would have especially objected to allowing them in a Den lead by a homosexual. I would not have trusted their safety on camp-outs or other overnight activities.
The Boy Scouts of America is NOT equivacal to a cult or the Hitler regime philosphy in any way. They teach boys morality, integrity, respect, and honor for their fellow mankind. With so many single mothers raising boys with no positive male role model in the lives of their sons, involvement in the Boy Scouts of America can give them guidance from men of integrity and morality who teach them how to be responsible and kind men for future generations.
Although Boy Scouts is not a “religious” organization, many churches do support troops within the church by donation of funds, supplies, etc. because the organization is founded on the basis of social morality.
I cannot change the world, but I can make decisions for my children based on what the Bible teaches, which excludes homosexuality as acceptable Christian behavior.
The Boy Scouts of America is NOT equivacal to a cult or the Hitler regime philosphy in any way. They teach boys morality, integrity, respect, and honor for their fellow mankind. With so many single mothers raising boys with no positive male role model in the lives of their sons, involvement in the Boy Scouts of America can give them guidance from men of integrity and morality who teach them how to be responsible and kind men for future generations.
Although Boy Scouts is not a “religious” organization, many churches do support troops within the church by donation of funds, supplies, etc. because the organization is founded on the basis of social morality.
I cannot change the world, but I can make decisions for my children based on what the Bible teaches, which excludes homosexuality as acceptable Christian behavior.
F
fix
Guest
And this understanding would have been the norm up until about 5 minutes ago. Now that perspective is seen as hateful and unscientific.
P
Phemie
Guest
It also excludes fornication as acceptable Christian behaviour and I haven’t heard anyone suggesting that Scouts who sleep with their girlfriends be kicked out.
A
adrift
Guest
There must be more bad reporters because my experience is that they have a preconceived idea of what they want to write. I have had first hand experience of being interviewed for an article about me. The reporter started off with a statement that became her lead line but something that was not said or indicated by me. In fact, I said the exact opposite. I also know that when it came to the abortion law being first presented here the senator said that you are going to push this through despite that it is wrong. What came out was him being quoted as Push this through. in news reporting, there is more cherry picking than honest reporting.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Huh? I said, “Now if, by calling himself gay, he means that he wants sexual activity with males, and he thinks that this is something that we should all encourage him in, then I think he should not be allowed in the troop.”
You can have same-sex attractions without thinking that others should encourage you in those attractions. I deal with same-sex attraction. If I weren’t also attracted to women, I might even call myself gay. But I would not approve of acting on those attractions, nor would I think that others should “encourage” my sinful tendencies.
So I think a homosexual boy should certainly be allowed to be part of the Boy Scouts, if he subscribes to Christian teachings on homosexual actions.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
What about scouts who do this AND promote the ideology that there is nothing wrong with it. If we haven’t considered reprimanding **these **scouts, then we have planted the seeds of our own downfall.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & peace!
Regarding kmcarl’s understanding being a norm until recently, normativity in itself does not recommend an understanding of a thing, particularly if that understanding is inaccurate or little more than a caricature.
Regarding kmcarl’s understanding being hateful and unscientific, it is most certainly neither. Or rather–on the one hand, it is difficult to determine what scientific claim s/he is making with his/her understanding (or if s/he is making one at all), and on the other, it is difficult to discern any clear evidence of hatred.
However, what is in evidence is fear.
In fact, kmcarl’s understanding is less reflective of an actual positive moral position than it is of a fearful position. Of course certain forms of sexual activity (for instance, homosexual activity) can be the subject of moral opprobrium. But the moment that we begin to speak of simply being in the presence of a homosexual youth as amounting to a form of subjection (as kmcarl did: “As a parent of twin boys who were very involved in Boy Scouts, I would not have wanted them to be subjected to a homosexual boy who openly flaunts his tendancies [sic]”), then we’re past the point of identifying a sexual practice as unclean and have begun marking certain people as vectors of moral contagion.
Moreover, the homosexual youth who “openly flaunts his tendancies [sic]” is clearly understood to be the type of any homosexual youth. There are a few things to say about this problematic understanding:
1–it indicates a belief that homosexual people are lacking in discretion when they truthfully acknowledge to themselves or to others (i.e., openly) the drift of their affections. This truthful acknowledgment–we would generally call such an acknowledgment “honesty”–is quite clearly seen as a locus of moral contagion and a danger to the integrity of the heterosexual youth in the immediate vicinity. Whether it is a danger to their morality or to their heterosexuality is unclear–it is simply a danger.
2–the use of the word “flaunt” understands homosexual youth in broad stereotypical terms–i.e., they must by nature be flaunting, flouncing, flamboyant folk who cannot help but be corruptors of decency and goodness by virtue of their homosexual inclination. What is being distinguished between here is the inherently-morally-corrupt-homosexual type and the inherently-morally-upright-heterosexual type. Both types, particularly considered together, are troubling: you set up heterosexuals to fail morally and deny homosexuals the opportunity to morally succeed. Adhering to these types represents a deeply myopic and immature view of sexuality that locates sexual morality not in moral or immoral acts, but in attractions to one sex or the other, even though such attractions are (even officially/magisterially!) understood not to be subject to moral opprobrium.
3–presumably one of two things is true: A) heterosexuals may openly flaunt their heterosexual tendencies (via talk of dating, for instance) without fear of being a source of moral contagion, but homosexuals may not; or B) flaunting a tendency is generally morally suspect. If A is true, it re-enforces the observations made in point 2–i.e., it is part of a way of thinking that would say, “My children are moral because they are not gay.” If B is true, then I would trust that the Boy Scouts would crack down on flaunting of any kind and that such a crack down has been the policy of the Scouts (with respect to tendency flaunting) for some time. The question arises, though: what constitutes flaunting? Any honest self-disclosure? Any attempt at authentic truthfulness, particularly when it is suspected that assumptions are being made about one’s affections that are not true (i.e., would a boy suspected of being gay be flaunting a tendency if he were to insist that he were heterosexual?)? And that brings us back to point 1.
Finally, kmcarl exhibits the understanding that a homosexual den leader is not only a source of moral contagion, but naturally represents the danger of being a sexual predator of children as well. This represents the familiar (and well-debunked) conflation of the pedophile or pederast with the homosexual and is, again, a caricature.
A tendency toward caricature and fear-based reactionary irrationality do not represent a sound basis for moral integrity. They are certainly no substitute for an actual authentic moral concern.
If the norms by which we evaluate something are fear, received caricatures, myopia and irrationality, chances are our evaluations will be deeply flawed and may lead us to behave in ways that are so* profoundly* out of step with moral reasoning that we actual fall into immoral patterns of behavior while still believing ourselves to be perfectly morally pure people. This is a recipe for moral disaster.
So if fear, caricature, myopia and irrationality were the norms by which we evaluated something until just 5 minutes ago, isn’t the biggest question why it took us until 5 minutes ago to do away with such clearly poisonous norms? What took us so long?
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
A couple things:
Regarding kmcarl’s understanding being a norm until recently, normativity in itself does not recommend an understanding of a thing, particularly if that understanding is inaccurate or little more than a caricature.
Regarding kmcarl’s understanding being hateful and unscientific, it is most certainly neither. Or rather–on the one hand, it is difficult to determine what scientific claim s/he is making with his/her understanding (or if s/he is making one at all), and on the other, it is difficult to discern any clear evidence of hatred.
However, what is in evidence is fear.
In fact, kmcarl’s understanding is less reflective of an actual positive moral position than it is of a fearful position. Of course certain forms of sexual activity (for instance, homosexual activity) can be the subject of moral opprobrium. But the moment that we begin to speak of simply being in the presence of a homosexual youth as amounting to a form of subjection (as kmcarl did: “As a parent of twin boys who were very involved in Boy Scouts, I would not have wanted them to be subjected to a homosexual boy who openly flaunts his tendancies [sic]”), then we’re past the point of identifying a sexual practice as unclean and have begun marking certain people as vectors of moral contagion.
Moreover, the homosexual youth who “openly flaunts his tendancies [sic]” is clearly understood to be the type of any homosexual youth. There are a few things to say about this problematic understanding:
1–it indicates a belief that homosexual people are lacking in discretion when they truthfully acknowledge to themselves or to others (i.e., openly) the drift of their affections. This truthful acknowledgment–we would generally call such an acknowledgment “honesty”–is quite clearly seen as a locus of moral contagion and a danger to the integrity of the heterosexual youth in the immediate vicinity. Whether it is a danger to their morality or to their heterosexuality is unclear–it is simply a danger.
2–the use of the word “flaunt” understands homosexual youth in broad stereotypical terms–i.e., they must by nature be flaunting, flouncing, flamboyant folk who cannot help but be corruptors of decency and goodness by virtue of their homosexual inclination. What is being distinguished between here is the inherently-morally-corrupt-homosexual type and the inherently-morally-upright-heterosexual type. Both types, particularly considered together, are troubling: you set up heterosexuals to fail morally and deny homosexuals the opportunity to morally succeed. Adhering to these types represents a deeply myopic and immature view of sexuality that locates sexual morality not in moral or immoral acts, but in attractions to one sex or the other, even though such attractions are (even officially/magisterially!) understood not to be subject to moral opprobrium.
3–presumably one of two things is true: A) heterosexuals may openly flaunt their heterosexual tendencies (via talk of dating, for instance) without fear of being a source of moral contagion, but homosexuals may not; or B) flaunting a tendency is generally morally suspect. If A is true, it re-enforces the observations made in point 2–i.e., it is part of a way of thinking that would say, “My children are moral because they are not gay.” If B is true, then I would trust that the Boy Scouts would crack down on flaunting of any kind and that such a crack down has been the policy of the Scouts (with respect to tendency flaunting) for some time. The question arises, though: what constitutes flaunting? Any honest self-disclosure? Any attempt at authentic truthfulness, particularly when it is suspected that assumptions are being made about one’s affections that are not true (i.e., would a boy suspected of being gay be flaunting a tendency if he were to insist that he were heterosexual?)? And that brings us back to point 1.
Finally, kmcarl exhibits the understanding that a homosexual den leader is not only a source of moral contagion, but naturally represents the danger of being a sexual predator of children as well. This represents the familiar (and well-debunked) conflation of the pedophile or pederast with the homosexual and is, again, a caricature.
A tendency toward caricature and fear-based reactionary irrationality do not represent a sound basis for moral integrity. They are certainly no substitute for an actual authentic moral concern.
If the norms by which we evaluate something are fear, received caricatures, myopia and irrationality, chances are our evaluations will be deeply flawed and may lead us to behave in ways that are so* profoundly* out of step with moral reasoning that we actual fall into immoral patterns of behavior while still believing ourselves to be perfectly morally pure people. This is a recipe for moral disaster.
So if fear, caricature, myopia and irrationality were the norms by which we evaluated something until just 5 minutes ago, isn’t the biggest question why it took us until 5 minutes ago to do away with such clearly poisonous norms? What took us so long?
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
- Status