Why would anybody condemn the Boy Scouts simply because they allow openly gay boys?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The vast majority of Catholics of child bearing age use artifical birth control… and they are all invited. The vast majority do not attend weekly mass - the Easter/Christmas ones are ALWAYS warmly welcomed and invited back.

I don’t know what you are talking about… my Priest practically begs us to invite our friends and neighbors to mass. He never once says only those who are willing to follow His commandments. He says all are welcome at mass.

The Holy Spirit is the one who convicts. Sometimes that happens quickly - sometimes it’s a life long process. I’ve never once heard of someone being asked to leave their Church because they were a sinner. Have you? :confused:

Where do you come up with this?
If you misunderstood the context of my statement, let me explain it to you. The Church does not extend membership to individuals who do not wish to follow Christ’s commandments. The Church requires Catholics to profess a litany of tenets of the faith and teachings of the Church and to recognize the infallible teaching authority of the Church. While the Church may invite anyone to come to Mass and pray, worship God, and listen to the scriptural readings and homily of the priest, it does not welcome anyone into Church membership unless they agree to profess the tenets and teachings of the Church.

I’ll take your points one at a time., but I promise to answer all of them.

First of all, you say all are invited. I ask you to be more clear. Invited to what? Invited to come to Mass and pray to God, and to listen to the scriptural readings and homilies? I would invite the devil if I thought that would do any good. That is not the same as saying the Church invites everyone to join it on their own terms. If that is your perception, you have sadly missed the point of Catholicism. The Catholic Church prescribes what its member must believe. For example, a person cannot be a Catholic and refuse to believe in the divinity of Christ. It is a tenet of the Catholic faith. When a person becomes a Catholic he professes this truth. If he openly refuses to believe it, he is refused entry into the Church. That is not to say that the Church does not invite atheists, but it does mean that an atheist may not be a valid member of the Catholic Church. Atheists are only welcome into membership in the Church if they repudiate atheism and accept the divinity of Christ, among many other requirements.

Many Catholics practice artificial birth control. The Church in Humanae Vitae made it perfectly clear that the use of contraception is a grave sin. This practice belies an individual’s profession of Catholicism. It is also a denial of the Church’s infallibility in its teaching authority. Some Catholics may want to refashion the Church to agree with their own notions, but that’s not the way it works. It would not matter if 99% of American Catholics practiced birth control, those who advocate the use of contraception have no right to call themselves Catholics. The Church will still be a vibrant organization, especially through those third world countries which accept all of its teachings without reservation or exception. I would go further to say that those priests and bishops who defend the use of contraception have no right to call themselves Catholic.

As for Catholics who only attend Mass on Christmas and Easter, you are clearly talking about a welcoming back to church to pray, worship God, and take instruction. There is always a welcome mat for these, and as I said before, no one is excluded from this kind of welcome. However, Catholics who do not practice their faith by attending Sunday Mass are advised by the Church to confess this as a grave sin and, if they have not done so, to refrain from reception of Holy Communion. If their intention is to continue in their sin, they have no right to call themselves Catholic, except in the sense that their baptism into the Church is irreversible, that is, they are still Catholics, but fallen away Catholics.

You are correct that it is the Holy Spirit who convicts and that sometimes it is a lifetime process. At the same time, a Lutheran cannot call himself a Catholic because he does not accept all the tenets and teachings of Catholicism. There is a difference between (1) accepting the teaching of the Church of what is sinful and then falling into sin, and (2) not accepting the teaching of the Church and doing the same sinful things. In the latter case, apparently the Holy Spirit has not yet convicted the person that they should become a Catholic, because they do not accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church which is a prerequisite for their calling themselves a practicing Catholic, If they are already Catholic they are only so in the sense of being a fallen away Catholic (their baptism into the Catholic Church makes them a Catholic forever, even if they fail to accept the teaching and tenets of their faith; conversely, if they are not a Catholic, not accepting the teachings and tenets of the Catholic faith bars them from membership) .

Where I came up with this is the teaching of the Catholic Church in the Catechism and other documents of the Church. Where do you still think I misspeak?
 
The Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Human Rights Campaign for starters.

Ed
I ddn’t realize they were posting on this thread.

Why do I care what they think? Just because we both agree gay boys shouldn’t get kicked out of the scouts? So what?

We probably also agree puppies are cute and the price of gasoline is ridculous.

Again, I say… so what?
 
This seems to support Robert’s point – if it’s the sin you despise and not the sinner, one would think your approach to homosexual boys in the BSA would be different.
One cannot create an environment that confirms, directs or endorses (even via silence) evil while claiming to love those it will affect. Truth and love go hand and hand. If one is given without the other, then the one given is counterfeit.
 
One cannot create an environment that confirms, directs or endorses (even via silence) evil while claiming to love those it will affect. Truth and love go hand and hand. If one is given without the other, then the one given is counterfeit.
Endorsing via silence… I can’t imagine how one would identify moments at which this was taking place and moments at which Christians loved sinners and hated sins. Is the opposite of “endorsing via silence” shunning?
 
Endorsing via silence… I can’t imagine how one would identify moments at which this was taking place and moments at which Christians loved sinners and hated sins. Is the opposite of “endorsing via silence” shunning?
It doesn’t matter. If one is deliberately silent in the face of evil, they are culpable. I think you are capable to figure out that shunning (to keep away from) is no where near the opposite of being silent on something.
 
There is a difference between (1) accepting the teaching of the Church of what is sinful and then falling into sin, and (2) not accepting the teaching of the Church and doing the same sinful things. In the latter case, apparently the Holy Spirit has not yet convicted the person that they should become a Catholic, because they do not accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church which is a prerequisite for their calling themselves a practicing Catholic, If they are already Catholic they are only so in the sense of being a fallen away Catholic (their baptism into the Catholic Church makes them a Catholic forever, even if they fail to accept the teaching and tenets of their faith; conversely, if they are not a Catholic, not accepting the teachings and tenets of the Catholic faith bars them from membership) .
I agree with everything you’ve posted here. It’s pretty much Caholic 101. However, I disagreed with you when you said:

"Neither Jesus nor the Catholic Church invites people who want to continue disregarding his commandments."

I said not true. Lots of Catholics disregard his commandments and are invited back… by the Church and by the Holy Spirit (they continue to come to mass so cleary God is still woking in their hearts) My Priest said even if we turn away from God, He will literally stalk us until our dying breath, trying to get us to return to Him. He loves us that much. We all disregard his commandments- or fail to live up to all that he calls us to be. It’s a silly notion to claim Jesus would no longer invite us back … even in our sinful condition. We’re all sinners… every last one of us. If we weren’t, we wouldn’t need to ask Him for mercy.
 
How can any person know for sure who is willing and who is unwilling to part from sin, even by observing their behavior? Sometimes people improve in small increments, other times they backslide, and they may also have problems we are unaware of that prevent them from making the effort to change at the moment. When Jesus pardoned the adulterous woman and said “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more,” he forgave her first and then told her not to sin anymore. I am not Christian but it seems to me that the primary responsibility of Christians is to be willing to forgive.
Jesus welcomes us back each and every time we decide to turn from sin. Each time we commit a serious sin, we separate ourselves from him. Each time we repent, and are heartily sorry for our sins, he forgives us and welcomes us back. Being a Christian is a struggle. Jesus likened it to carrying a cross.
 
Homosexuals have only SSA. That is by definition what makes them homosexual. A subset of homosexuals go to gay bars; chaste homosexuals probably do not.
A homosexual that is active has more than just SSA. They have officially accepted the lifestyle and have no shame or concern about their actions.
Yes, in the same way I would call a heterosexual virgin “heterosexual” or “straight,” or a promiscuous heterosexual “heterosexual” or “straight,” or a chaste homosexual “homosexual” or “gay.”
Thank you for confirming the fact that the term “homosexual” can and does have multiple meanings. Which is why it would be useful to use more exact terms when debating the BSA policy.
A sexually active homosexual is a homosexual insofar as he is attracted to other men; the term applies even if he ceases to have sex.
Well, I agreed earlier that this is possible if one simply looks at text book definitions, but the way the term is used by multiple people and meaning multiple things, it would be good to use a more precise term for those with just SSA. This would make clear that one with ONLY SSA is not active while a “homosexual” is. Why do you object to this?
 
A homosexual that is active has more than just SSA. They have officially accepted the lifestyle** and have no shame or concern about their actions.**
How the heck do YOU know that? Can you read someone’s heart?

Does a heterosexual Catholic male who has sex with his girlfriend experience shame and concern for his actions? It’s certainly possible.

Why is the homosexual different?

What a stupid thing to suggest.
 
I agree with everything you’ve posted here. It’s pretty much Caholic 101. However, I disagreed with you when you said:

"Neither Jesus nor the Catholic Church invites people who want to continue disregarding his commandments."

I said not true. Lots of Catholics disregard his commandments and are invited back… by the Church and by the Holy Spirit (they continue to come to mass so cleary God is still woking in their hearts) My Priest said even if we turn away from God, He will literally stalk us until our dying breath, trying to get us to return to Him. He loves us that much. We all disregard his commandments- or fail to live up to all that he calls us to be. It’s a silly notion to claim Jesus would no longer invite us back … even in our sinful condition. We’re all sinners… every last one of us. If we weren’t, we wouldn’t need to ask Him for mercy.
Of course he invites us back. I never said differently. He invites us back to be sorry for our sins and to renew our friendship with him. He does not want us back if we do not want to be sorry for our sins. I’m sorry, yellowbird, we cannot have Jesus and refuse to try to stop sinning at the same time. Sin separates us from Jesus. Sorrow for our sins renews our friendship with him.

All I am saying is that we cannot defend sin and be a Catholic at the same time. We can sin and still be a Catholic, but we cannot defend it.
 
Of course he invites us back. I never said differently. He invites us back to be sorry for our sins and to renew our friendship with him. He does not want us back if we do not want to be sorry for our sins. I’m sorry, yellowbird, we cannot have Jesus and refuse to try to stop sinning at the same time. Sin separates us from Jesus. Sorrow for our sins renews our friendship with him.

All I am saying is that we cannot defend sin and be a Catholic at the same time. We can sin and still be a Catholic, but we cannot defend it.
I agree with you.

There is no sin in being gay though… and isn’t that what this thread is about?

The sin is engaging in homosexual sex.

I’m not defending the sin. I’m not even loving the sinner. I’m loving the boy who is simply gay.
 
One cannot create an environment that confirms, directs or endorses (even via silence) evil while claiming to love those it will affect. Truth and love go hand and hand. If one is given without the other, then the one given is counterfeit.
Exactly right. To clarify, the sin is not about being openly gay, the problem becomes the affirmation will go to the next level, especially when Gay adults force their way into positions in scouting where they can “mentor” gay scouts. And that will go where? The answer is obvious.

Bridge in Brooklyn for sale - reduced price.

Ed
 
Endorsing via silence… I can’t imagine how one would identify moments at which this was taking place and moments at which Christians loved sinners and hated sins. Is the opposite of “endorsing via silence” shunning?
It doesn’t matter. If one is deliberately silent in the face of evil, they are culpable. I think you are capable to figure out that shunning (to keep away from) is no where near the opposite of being silent on something.
So what does not being “deliberately silent in the face of evil” mean in the case of the BSA?
 
How the heck do YOU know that? Can you read someone’s heart?

Does a heterosexual Catholic male who has sex with his girlfriend experience shame and concern for his actions? It’s certainly possible.

Why is the homosexual different?

What a stupid thing to suggest.
Key word, yellowbird, is ACTIVE. Meaning they are living the lifestyle, not just slipped up once or twice. I was not inferring that one that falls here and there has no shame. Please keep all my comments in context and not just single out one little sentence you want to highlight, trying to make me look like an uncharitable bigot.

A person that continuously or obsessively masturbates, fornicates, commits adultery, steals, rapes or murders don’t see themselves as doing wrong. If they see nothing wrong with what they are doing, then how in the heck are they suppose to feel shame?

The BSA ruling simply creates an environment that makes homosexuals feel normal. When something seems normal, then the “wrong” is done away with also. This means one that looses a sense of “wrong” fails to experience shame. When shame and guilt is done away with, then morality is turned on its head.
 
Exactly right. To clarify, the sin is not about being openly gay, the problem becomes the affirmation will go to the next level, especially when Gay adults force their way into positions in scouting where they can “mentor” gay scouts. And that will go where? The answer is obvious.

Bridge in Brooklyn for sale - reduced price.

Ed
Well if that were happening, I wouldn’t allow my child to be a scout. But who knows if that will happen? The same thing was said if we allowed gay teachers in our schools. My child had a gay teacher and guess what? She learned math - and nothing more. No indoctrination whatsoever.

Nobody is forced to be a scout… and I doubt gay people will storm the doors to be troop leaders. Besides, aren’t they busy making Disney movies to indoctrinate our children? :rolleyes:
 
A homosexual that is active has more than just SSA. They have officially accepted the lifestyle and have no shame or concern about their actions.
Indeed, but a homosexual by definition has SSA. Anything else is something other than “homosexual.” For example, “sexually active homosexual.”
Thank you for confirming the fact that the term “homosexual” can and does have multiple meanings.
No, it has one – persons attracted to the same sex. I never mean anything more than that when I say “homosexual.” Have you read all my posts?
Well, I agreed earlier that this is possible if one simply looks at text book definitions, but the way the term is used by multiple people and meaning multiple things, it would be good to use a more precise term for those with just SSA.
Homosexual is sufficiently precise. Outside of these forums, it has never produced any ambiguity whatsoever.
This would make clear that one with ONLY SSA is not active while a “homosexual” is. Why do you object to this?
Because I laid out my definition of homosexual and consequently there is no ambiguity, and my definition is one that everyone I have ever met uses. Why would I submit to some bizarre niche vocabulary that adds nothing new to the discussion?

Someone who is sexually active can have “sexually active” appended to whatever other modifier is appropriate. Someone who is markedly chaste can have “chaste” appended.
 
Back to my original statement, what sense would it make for the Church to invite a person to be a member who does not want to follow Christ’s commandments? Or why would Jesus want to invite a person to be his disciple if the person does not want to follow his commandments? Sure, he would invite him to change his mind! There is a difference between a sinner who does not want to be a sinner, and a sinner who wants to stay in his sins. The Church is for sinners who want to change. Outside is for sinners who don’t want to change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top