USCCB youth refugee materials updated to address gay, transgendered youth

[markomalley]

From Catholic World News:Bridging Refugee Youth and Children’s Services (BRYCS), a project of the United Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services, has updated and expanded its training to workers in federally-funded refugee resettlement programs, in part to “address the needs of particularly vulnerable groups of children, including youth who may be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered.” The training is intended for those who work with youth in the custody of the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement / Division of Children’s Services. The revised Tier One Training Manual – copyrighted by the United Conference of Catholic Bishops, and published with the assistance of a Department of Health and Human Services grant – notes that “it is important to be alert for homophobic remarks among the staff. If any are made, discuss in a non-judgmental way how these kinds of remarks may make a young gay resident feel.” If a “boy teases another boy, saying that he is gay, standing too close to him, and so forth, it would be a form of sexual harassment.” “Exploring Complexities” – the new Tier Two Training Manual, also copyrighted by the United Conference of Catholic Bishops, and published with the assistance of a Department of Health and Human Services grant – presents a scenario in which two male minors are “rubbing each other with their feet on the other’s genital areas.” The training advises:

(snip)

The BRYCS manual makes no reference to moral law or the practice of virtue.

• Training Initiative Overview- Updated and Expanded! (Bridging Refugee Youth and Children’s Services, USCCB)
• Tier One Training Manual (Bridging Refugee Youth and Children’s Services, USCCB)
• Tier Two Training Manual (Bridging Refugee Youth and Children’s Services, USCCB)

This is the danger when the Church accepts government money…they become enslaved to the government.

*Please note: this post and my comments are not to say that GLBTIQXYZ youth shouldn’t be ministered to; however, I do not think that anybody does them a favor when they don’t discuss the moral implications of their actions.

*As the CDF said back in 1986:
The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society’s understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy.

1. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.
Sigh. Please pray for our bishops.

 

[catholictiger]

From Catholic World News:

Bridging Refugee Youth and Children’s Services (BRYCS), a project of the United Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services, has updated and expanded its training to workers in federally-funded refugee resettlement programs, in part to “address the needs of particularly vulnerable groups of children, including youth who may be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered.” The training is intended for those who work with youth in the custody of the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement / Division of Children’s Services. The revised Tier One Training Manual – copyrighted by the United Conference of Catholic Bishops, and published with the assistance of a Department of Health and Human Services grant – notes that “it is important to be alert for homophobic remarks among the staff. If any are made, discuss in a non-judgmental way how these kinds of remarks may make a young gay resident feel.” If a “boy teases another boy, saying that he is gay, standing too close to him, and so forth, it would be a form of sexual harassment.” “Exploring Complexities” – the new Tier Two Training Manual, also copyrighted by the United Conference of Catholic Bishops, and published with the assistance of a Department of Health and Human Services grant – presents a scenario in which two male minors are “rubbing each other with their feet on the other’s genital areas.” The training advises:

(snip)
​

in your snipped you gave us I don’t see any issue with what the USCCB did please explain further and provide quotes that back up what you are arguing.

Did the bishops of this country actually come out and say that homosexuals are not disordered?

I’m going to glance at your documents but I suspect most people won’t so you may need to further explain what issue you have with the USCCB in their statements are.

edit to add some things: this addresses how things should be handled in difficult situations abroad. In documents on child protection/safe environment/ other names there isn’t a section on what the Church teaches on sex with minors sexual abuse etc. What it is doing is setting up practices and safeguards to protect the children and the volunteers staff and priest from being accused wrongly for child abuse. The Church or the bishops don’t have to define doctrine in every single document she puts forward especially if it is an instruction for those ministering to the young on how to handle certain situations that may arise.

I’m in no way saying that the Church is wrong on its teaching of homosexuality, but be careful about bashing the USCCB when in one document they may not do something you approve of. I think it would be a safe assumption that the Church (the usccb) in providing these instructions assumes those who will read them know and want to spread the truth about the Church.

one more edit: I did see the problematic text in the article. this does through up a red flag for me but you still have to be careful.​

 

[markomalley]

in your snipped you gave us I don’t see any issue with what the USCCB did please explain further and provide quotes that back up what you are arguing.

Did the bishops of this country actually come out and say that homosexuals are not disordered?

I’m going to glance at your documents but I suspect most people won’t so you may need to further explain what issue you have with the USCCB in their statements are.

edit to add some things: this addresses how things should be handled in difficult situations abroad. In documents on child protection/safe environment/ other names there isn’t a section on what the Church teaches on sex with minors sexual abuse etc. What it is doing is setting up practices and safeguards to protect the children and the volunteers staff and priest from being accused wrongly for child abuse. The Church or the bishops don’t have to define doctrine in every single document she puts forward especially if it is an instruction for those ministering to the young on how to handle certain situations that may arise.

I’m in no way saying that the Church is wrong on its teaching of homosexuality, but be careful about bashing the USCCB when in one document they may not do something you approve of. I think it would be a safe assumption that the Church (the usccb) in providing these instructions assumes those who will read them know and want to spread the truth about the Church.

one more edit: I did see the problematic text in the article. this does through up a red flag for me but you still have to be careful.

Please note again the last sentence of the CWN extract: *The BRYCS manual makes no reference to moral law or the practice of virtue. *

That is problematic. Very problematic.

My backup: 1986 CDF letter to bishops (referenced above), the 1992 note, Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons, the 2003 note, Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons. In these documents, you will see a common thread indicating that we do people with homosexual tendencies no favor by pretending that homosexual activity is morally neutral (or even worse, morally good).

However, please don’t take it that I am bashing the USCCB. Believe it or not, I’m not. The point is that the USCCB, because of their acceptance of government grants, is pushed to comply with government doctrine…even in cases where that government doctrine is in conflict with the Magisterium. This is an example of that.

My personal suggestion to the USCCB is that they leave the government money in the hands of the government…that way they have the freedom to act in accordance with Catholic doctrine, unfettered by the whims of the secular government.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The point is that the USCCB, because of their acceptance of government grants, is pushed to comply with government doctrine…even in cases where that government doctrine is in conflict with the Magisterium. This is an example of that.

My personal suggestion to the USCCB is that they leave the government money in the hands of the government…that way they have the freedom to act in accordance with Catholic doctrine, unfettered by the whims of the secular government.

I could not possibly agree more. “Who takes the king’s shilling is the king’s man” becomes more true every day, it appears.

 

[po18guy]

I think that it is way past time to disband the USCCB. Bulldoze the building, salt the earth and start over - reformulating it according to actual Catholic teaching. From its unorthodox direction in recent decades, the CCHD debacle and numerous other missteps, it appears that it is overly influenced by entrenched progressives and other dissidents. I am not sure that the current organization can be salvaged.

 

[catholictiger]

Please note again the last sentence of the CWN extract: *The BRYCS manual makes no reference to moral law or the practice of virtue. *

That is problematic. Very problematic.

My backup: 1986 CDF letter to bishops (referenced above), the 1992 note, Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons, the 2003 note, Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons. In these documents, you will see a common thread indicating that we do people with homosexual tendencies no favor by pretending that homosexual activity is morally neutral (or even worse, morally good).

However, please don’t take it that I am bashing the USCCB. Believe it or not, I’m not. The point is that the USCCB, because of their acceptance of government grants, is pushed to comply with government doctrine…even in cases where that government doctrine is in conflict with the Magisterium. This is an example of that.

My personal suggestion to the USCCB is that they leave the government money in the hands of the government…that way they have the freedom to act in accordance with Catholic doctrine, unfettered by the whims of the secular government.

I don’t disagree just be careful about dealing with the USCCB and be remember these are very complex issues. I think many people in the Church overreact to what the USCCB does. This yes is problematic and I don’t disagree for one second. Yes there are bishops who may not always see eye to eye with the Church. What I fear sometimes is that people are losing faith in the USCCB and in their bishops we don’t need this.

because one day I will owe obedience to my bishop who I suspect will agree in reason to everything they say and pronounce. I want to be very careful when throwing the USCCB under the bus. I don’t think bulldozing and starting over is the right thing to do. As I have said I think many times people over exaggerate how bad the USCCB is. People like Michael Vloris and others like him paint a bad image of them and I think many times it may be misplaced.

again I disagree with the text but I want us to be careful how we handle this situation. I believe the USCCB is a very good organization and does many good things for the Church, sometimes things sneak into their documents that are very problematic, but I don’t think the USCCB is so dissenting to Catholic Teaching that we should bulldoze it and start over.

 

[SMGS127]

Please note again the last sentence of the CWN extract: *The BRYCS manual makes no reference to moral law or the practice of virtue. *

That is problematic. Very problematic.

So we should make sure to take time lecturing a homeless 12 year-old that his behavior truly is reprehensible instead of feeding him and providing him shelter? I would argue he needs time to adjust after his parents completely shirked their duties by throwing him out on the street before we discuss his behavior with him.

 

[catholictiger]

So we should make sure to take time lecturing a homeless 12 year-old that his behavior truly is reprehensible instead of feeding him and providing him shelter? I would argue he needs time to adjust after his parents completely shirked their duties by throwing him out on the street before we discuss his behavior with him.

i agree but saying that this is not allowed on the residence but would be allowed outside of the residence is problematic.

 

[Holly3278]

Please note again the last sentence of the CWN extract: *The BRYCS manual makes no reference to moral law or the practice of virtue. *

That is problematic. Very problematic.

My backup: 1986 CDF letter to bishops (referenced above), the 1992 note, Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons, the 2003 note, Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons. In these documents, you will see a common thread indicating that we do people with homosexual tendencies no favor by pretending that homosexual activity is morally neutral (or even worse, morally good).

However, please don’t take it that I am bashing the USCCB. Believe it or not, I’m not. The point is that the USCCB, because of their acceptance of government grants, is pushed to comply with government doctrine…even in cases where that government doctrine is in conflict with the Magisterium. This is an example of that.

My personal suggestion to the USCCB is that they leave the government money in the hands of the government…that way they have the freedom to act in accordance with Catholic doctrine, unfettered by the whims of the secular government.

But why is it problematic? As someone else said, the USCCB is probably assuming that those whom this material is designed to train will already know about the teachings of the Church and want to spread them.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But why is it problematic? As someone else said, the USCCB is probably assuming that those whom this material is designed to train will already know about the teachings of the Church and want to spread them.

And how good an assumption is that?

How good is it when those who are actually executing the programs are trained in such a way as to be “non judgmental” about sexual perversion, and to be “supportive” in such a way as to “not cause stress or psychological trauma” to a young homosexual or “transgendered” person, but to “affirm” him or her in his or her “identity”?

What does any of that mean in practice? If a young male client wants to go around in a dress and request aid in “discovering his true self”, then what?

And to those who administer the USCCB programs; likely all laypersons, what does it mean? What will be more important to them, Church teachings or the program, considering that the social workers and such who implement the programs are presumably “true believers” in the tenets of social work and depend on the programs for their livelihoods besides?

And what will the 500+ bishops who compose the body of the USCCB actually know about how this is implemented in detail?

One would have assumed that Catholic hospitals operated (in theory at least) by orders of nuns would reject the HHS mandate “compromise” root and branch when the bishops did, but their main organization’s leaders sure didn’t. Why didn’t they? Because they all “take the king’s shilling” that’s why.

 

[SMGS127]

i agree but saying that this is not allowed on the residence but would be allowed outside of the residence is problematic.

Well I’m not saying to condone the behavior. But the fact of the matter is that nearly 40% of homeless youth are LGBT, because there are many intolerant parents who can’t stand the idea of their child being attracted to those of the same sex, and instead of loving and caring for them, they throw them out on the street. These kids have already HEARD “being gay is wrong blah blah blah” and “you’re a horrible person for being gay blah blah blah” and the second you open the conversation with moral teaching, they won’t have anything to do with your shelter. Show them you love them first, THEN teach them the correct Christian teaching (being gay isn’t immoral and doesn’t make you a bad person, only being actively gay is immoral). And don’t hinge your love and support on them being moral. Everyone struggles with sins, and these kids already knew what it was like to live every day in fear that if they screwed up and sinned, they’d be thrown out of their house. Don’t give them that experience again.

I see nothing wrong with the USCCB guidelines.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well I’m not saying to condone the behavior. But the fact of the matter is that nearly 40% of homeless youth are LGBT, because there are many intolerant parents who can’t stand the idea of their child being attracted to those of the same sex,

I think we would need to see a reputable study on that to believe that 40% are homosexual.

One would also need to wonder which is the cause and which is the effect. Homeless youth are prime prey to sexual predators. Is that the cause of homeless youth being involved in homosexual activity, or is parental rejection because of homosexuality truly the cause of homelessness.

I would take quite a bit of convincing. I once worked in a home for “homeless” boys. Of them, I only knew of one who engaged in homosexual acts, and he did that for money paid to him by homosexuals. Whether those experiences “turned” him homosexual in his own mind, I don’t know. I do recall that his brother, who also lived in the home, was furious with him for doing what he was doing, and seemed to think it all totally about money.

 

[Tigg]

I think that it is way past time to disband the USCCB. Bulldoze the building, salt the earth and start over - reformulating it according to actual Catholic teaching. From its unorthodox direction in recent decades, the CCHD debacle and numerous other missteps, it appears that it is overly influenced by entrenched progressives and other dissidents. I am not sure that the current organization can be salvaged.

I could live with this!!

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think that it is way past time to disband the USCCB. Bulldoze the building, .

I have to dissent! Once you took the cubicles out, you could probably store any number of hay bales in that building! What were you thinking?

 

[bsroufek]

My personal suggestion to the USCCB is that they leave the government money in the hands of the government…that way they have the freedom to act in accordance with Catholic doctrine, unfettered by the whims of the secular government.

I agree wholeheartedly and pray for this.

 

[bsroufek]

You know, the USCCB has a Contact Page in order to “comment” on anything you want.

I used it to beg them not to accept any more government funding for social or charitable endeavors.