Openly gay boys in the Boy Scouts and the Pope's recent message concernig gay clergy

[fix]

Grace & peace!

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!

Defining oneself by one’s sexual deviations or disordered desires is never good morally or psychologically. The faddist notion of anything goes because popular culture demands it is vapid.

 

[Memaw]

And this understanding would have been the norm up until about 5 minutes ago. Now that perspective is seen as hateful and unscientific.

And what their doing to our normal kids is not hateful and unscientific. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Orogeny]

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.”

Hmm. A boy who declares that he is “openly gay” is, in my opinion, stating just that.

When I was in Boy Scouts so many years ago, there was a boy who, looking back, was possibly gay. I don’t have a problem with that. I would, though, have had a problem if he declared that he was sexually attracted to other boys.

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.

Why would he declare himself “openly gay” if it isn’t to get approval of that condition?

Peace

Tim

 

[fix]

And what their doing to our normal kids is not hateful and unscientific. God Bless, Memaw

The deeper question is why are our children publicly identifying by their sexual desire? It is wrong on many levels.

 

[fix]

Why would he declare himself “openly gay” if it isn’t to get approval of that condition?

Tim

That is the basic point. Never before has such nonsense been the norm. Why now?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Hmm. A boy who declares that he is “openly gay” is, in my opinion, stating just that.

There is a rapidly growing group of “gay celibates”, which you might be interested to learn about. These folks do not approve of homosexual sex, but they do call themselves gay, because they believe that this is their sexual orientation. I don’t think that a person has to agree with them calling their way of labeling themselves as gay in order to respect their choices.

If a boy comes into contact with such responsible adults, and decides to call himself gay but be celibate, would it be appropriate to sanction him?

(Note: I wouldn’t use the term “openly gay” to describe him. But simply “gay”, as a description of his believed sexual orientation.)

Why would he declare himself “openly gay” if it isn’t to get approval of that condition?

He might want to get acceptance of his situation, as a person who is tempted. I am not even saying that this is the appropriate thing for him to seek out – **but it is certainly understandable for a boy with SSA to seek this sort of acceptance out. Even if we discourage him from defining himself by his temptations, I don’t think it appropriate to allow that word “gay” by itself determine his membership in the Boy Scouts.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

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.

Mark,

I too felt a bit upset about kmcarl’s remarks, but I decided to interpret them in the most charitable way possible, and I would encourage you to do the same. By “a boy who flaunts his homosexual tendencies”, I took it to mean a boy who talks about how attractive other boys are in an aggressive sort of way, continually talks about gay sex and related topics, or openly flirts with other boys. If that’s what kmcarl meant by flaunting, then I agree with him that I would not want my boys subjected to them, either!

It’s far from clear that kmcarl had a problem with boys having more feminine voices, not enjoying team sports, or liking figure skating.

 

[Orogeny]

There is a rapidly growing group of “gay celibates”, which you might be interested to learn about. These folks do not approve of homosexual sex, but they do call themselves gay, because they believe that this is their sexual orientation. I don’t think that a person has to agree with them calling their way of labeling themselves as gay in order to respect their choices.

How many of them are boys?

If a boy comes into contact with such responsible adults, and decides to call himself gay but be celibate, would it be appropriate to sanction him?

Again, what would be the point of calling himself gay? To be a role model?

(Note: I wouldn’t use the term “openly gay” to describe him. But simply “gay”, as a description of his believed sexual orientation.)

See, here is the thing, to me. We are not discussing boys who are gay, we are discussing boys who are “openly gay”. As many activists will point out, there have always been gay boys in the Boy Scouts. No one denies that. Now, the Boy Scouts allow boys who are “openly gay”. What does that mean? That they are attracted to other boys? Yes, but more than that. They are attracted to other boys and want everyone to know it.

Even if we discourage him from defining himself by his temptations, I don’t think it appropriate to allow that word “gay” by itself determine his membership in the Boy Scouts.

Well, calling oneself “openly gay” IS defining himself by his temptations. I don’t understand how that can even be debated.

And again, the problem isn’t that a boy is gay. It is that he has defined himself that way.

Peace

Tim

 

[Prodigal_Son]

How many of them are boys?Again, what would be the point of calling himself gay? To be a role model?See, here is the thing, to me. We are not discussing boys who are gay, we are discussing boys who are “openly gay”. As many activists will point out, there have always been gay boys in the Boy Scouts. No one denies that. Now, the Boy Scouts allow boys who are “openly gay”. What does that mean? That they are attracted to other boys? Yes, but more than that. They are attracted to other boys and want everyone to know it.Well, calling oneself “openly gay” IS defining himself by his temptations. I don’t understand how that can even be debated.

And again, the problem isn’t that a boy is gay. It is that he has defined himself that way.

I don’t understand. You admit that the boy is gay, and thus admit that this is an appropriate way for him to describe himself (at least, privately). Otherwise, I don’t know what on earth you mean by saying that boys can be gay.

Now your objection seems to hinge on the idea that, not only are they gay, but “they want everyone to know it.” But have you considered *why *they want everyone – or at least some relevant people, including the scoutmaster – to know it? You seem to assume that it must be because they “define” themselves by this attraction. But these are KIDS. They don’t know how to define themselves. Everything they see in the culture tells them that their being gay is something very important about themselves. Are they supposed to resist this cultural onslaught on their own?

I think they need the freedom to (for now) define themselves however they like, and then understand that one’s definition does not determine one’s actions. In time, they can learn that their identity is not in their attractions, but elsewhere.

Perhaps the worry is that they call themselves gay in order to act out sexually with other gay kids? And I guess this is a real worry. But I think it would be better to confront this worry from a perspective that understands that same-sex attracted youth are put in a very difficult position, precisely because the culture aims a message at them that they ought to act out on their attractions.

 

[Robert_Sock]

As Pope Francis points out in regards to gay clergy, they are not to be marginalized. Who are we to judge ‘openly’ gay boys in BSA.

 

[fix]

I don’t understand. You admit that the boy is gay, and thus admit that this is an appropriate way for him to describe himself (at least, privately). Otherwise, I don’t know what on earth you mean by saying that boys can be gay.

Now your objection seems to hinge on the idea that, not only are they gay, but “they want everyone to know it.” But have you considered *why *they want everyone – or at least some relevant people, including the scoutmaster – to know it? You seem to assume that it must be because they “define” themselves by this attraction. But these are KIDS. They don’t know how to define themselves. Everything they see in the culture tells them that their being gay is something very important about themselves. Are they supposed to resist this cultural onslaught on their own?

I think they need the freedom to (for now) define themselves however they like, and then understand that one’s definition does not determine one’s actions. In time, they can learn that their identity is not in their attractions, but elsewhere.

Perhaps the worry is that they call themselves gay in order to act out sexually with other gay kids? And I guess this is a real worry. But I think it would be better to confront this worry from a perspective that understands that same-sex attracted youth are put in a very difficult position, precisely because the culture aims a message at them that they ought to act out on their attractions.

We are talking about Catholic kids here. This issue should be addressed in families and with priests and psychiatrists. The Scouts, Catholic or not, are not counseling centers.

Children should not be encouraged to misdefine themselves regardless of the cultural indoctrination.

Now, in almost every thread on this topic I notice that the only perspective taken into account is that of the person identifying by the disordered desire. This is quite wrong. While the person may need proper care, of many types, they are not the sole or exclusive consideration in these matters. We as a society and as individual families have concerns and needs as well. That means that other kids do not need to take on this issue because one in the group has such a problem. Some things are private and ought to remain private. That is an audacious idea these days. Even counter cultural. But can you see that this ever constant “gay” issue needs to be put in proper perspective. It, generally, is not a public issue. It ought not be a political issue to young kids. It should be addressed in the proper place, time, and circumstance. That is not Boy Scouts.

 

[fix]

As Pope Francis points out in regards to gay clergy, they are not to be marginalized. Who are we to judge ‘openly’ gay boys in BSA.

The Pope was referring to persons who have this condition, confess, and try to live as Christians. He was not talking about people who define themselves by their sexual disorders or about young males in Scouting.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

As Pope Francis points out in regards to gay clergy, they are not to be marginalized. Who are we to judge ‘openly’ gay boys in BSA.

Well, surely Francis didn’t mean that we should tacitly encourage sin. For example, it would not be “judging” gay boys to prevent them from being assigned to the same tent, in camping. This would just be wise. So I think you may be making more of a point of this whole “Who I am to judge” business than Francis meant out of it.

I largely agree with the spirit of your comment, but I caution against portraying our Papa as a relativist.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The Pope was referring to persons who have this condition, confess, and try to live as Christians. He was not talking about people who define themselves by their sexual disorders …

Despite calling them “gay people”?

(I agree, of course, that he wasn’t referring to people who rejected traditional teachings on sexual morality).

 

[fix]

Despite calling them “gay people”?

(I agree, of course, that he wasn’t referring to people who rejected traditional teachings on sexual morality).

I have seen various translations and some do not translate as “gay”. But, even if he used it he may have been trying to communicate in popular language but not affirming anything else.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I have seen various translations and some do not translate as “gay”. But, even if he used it he may have been trying to communicate in popular language but not affirming anything else.

Absolutely. Because the Pope thinks that, at a certain point, you have to start using popular language, even given its limitations.

 

[Orogeny]

I don’t understand. You admit that the boy is gay, and thus admit that this is an appropriate way for him to describe himself (at least, privately). Otherwise, I don’t know what on earth you mean by saying that boys can be gay.

I don’t understand, either because I didn’t say that at all. How many boys describe themselves as straight or heterosexual as a means of identity?

Now your objection seems to hinge on the idea that, not only are they gay, but “they want everyone to know it.” But have you considered *why *they want everyone – or at least some relevant people, including the scoutmaster – to know it? You seem to assume that it must be because they “define” themselves by this attraction. But these are KIDS. They don’t know how to define themselves. Everything they see in the culture tells them that their being gay is something very important about themselves. Are they supposed to resist this cultural onslaught on their own?

Excuse me, but they DO define themselves by their affliction. That is the point!!! “Openly gay” boys. If that isn’t defining themselves by their attractions, what is it?

Are we supposed to agree with the culture that tells them that being gay is a good thing? That if you really have those feelings, you should be true to yourself and act on them?

Perhaps the worry is that they call themselves gay in order to act out sexually with other gay kids? And I guess this is a real worry. But I think it would be better to confront this worry from a perspective that understands that same-sex attracted youth are put in a very difficult position, precisely because the culture aims a message at them that they ought to act out on their attractions.

Yeah, that is a worry. We wouldn’t let a boy who has reached puberty sleep in a tent with a young girl scout, would we. Or an adult man with a girl that wasn’t his daughter. Why might that be?

Again, we are specifically talking about “openly gay” boys. Boys that have publicly stated that they are gay, not boys with SSA that they are struggling with.

Peace

Tim

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Yeah, that is a worry. We wouldn’t let a boy who has reached puberty sleep in a tent with a young girl scout, would we. Or an adult man with a girl that wasn’t his daughter. Why might that be?

Again, we are specifically talking about “openly gay” boys. Boys that have publicly stated that they are gay, not boys with SSA that they are struggling with.
/QUOTE]

Um, if you wouldn’t let an openly gay boy sleep in a tent with your son, why would you let a closeted gay boy sleep in a tent with your son? I don’t understand.

Do you think that closeted people are better able to control themselves? There is an entire industry of “down low” gay hook-ups that proves you wrong.

 

[Robert_Sock]

The Pope was referring to persons who have this condition, confess, and try to live as Christians. He was not talking about people who define themselves by their sexual disorders or about young males in Scouting.

I think we need more clarification on what the Pope meant when he said that gay clergy should not be marginalized. My original post was never meant to say that the Vatican condones ‘openly’ gay boys into the BSA, but to simply open up a discussion as to whether or not the Pope’s statement would also apply to the BSA. Much of the discussion on this thread has been to focus on personal beliefs instead of focusing on the Pope’s statements.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

I have seen various translations and some do not translate as “gay”. But, even if he used it he may have been trying to communicate in popular language but not affirming anything else.

I think I saw elsewhere on CAF that the original text used the word “gay” (it is the same in Spanish, and nearly identical in Italian), because, like everyone else in the real world, our Holy Father uses the word only to refer to the biological attraction to people of the same sex, as can be seen in his distinguishing between someone being “gay” and a part of the “gay lobby” (which some people on CAF think the word automatically implies…)

Anyway, the issue with the scouts is that 11 and 12 year olds don’t really have a developed sense of sexuality to begin with, and since that is the age that most boys join Boy Scouts, the policy doesn’t really apply. A 16 y.o. who has been in the troop 5 years, on the other hand, probably has noticed that he gets certain feelings for other men, and not for women. The policy just allows the 16 y.o. who has been with the troop 5 years to stay in without hiding his sexual orientation. The policy does not condone homosexual sex, as it explicitly states it doesn’t think that any of its members should be having sexual intercourse.