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

[Corki]

Do you find it problematic that a person can claim to be a heterosexual but then claim to live a chaste life? Or do you assume that everyone who identifies themselves as a heterosexual is having sex?

non sequitor. If someone is open about thier disordered sexuality, there is reason for concern. If someone is open about their normally ordered sexuality, there is not reason for concern. In both cases, if they are open about thier sexual activities, there is reason for concern.

Same with the homosexual. Just because a person is attracted to the same sex doesn’t mean they are having sex. And isn’t that where the sin lies? Not in who they are - but what they do.

Yes, the sin is with what they do. Yes it is sinful to have sex outside of marrige. But it is also sinful to promote the “gay” lifestyle, to force people to pretend that both orientations are equal, to advocate for homosexual causes such as same-sex marriage. If someone is “openly gay” how likely is it that they will not be also engaging in these sinful activities?

FWIW, I have a lot of homosexual friends - some chaste, some not. But I only know one who does not also get wrapped up in some ot the other activist junk.

 

[shocktrooper]

Do you find it problematic that a person can claim to be a heterosexual but then claim to live a chaste life? Or do you assume that everyone who identifies themselves as a heterosexual is having sex?

When one claims to be “gay” or “homosexual”, it is implied they are accepting of it since they are willing to share the information and feel no shame about the disordered condition. A person that is a heterosexual does not define himself that way. He is just a person, just like a homosexual. I don’t go around finding ways to let people know that I am a heterosexual. I don’t say, “I am a heterosexual”. Also, being a heterosexual or a person with OSA is not disordered. So even if I did go around saying I was a heterosexual, I still would not be defining myself by sin. I don’t think your point is relative since homosexuals and heterosexuals use the terms for different reasons.

Same with the homosexual. Just because a person is attracted to the same sex doesn’t mean they are having sex. And isn’t that where the sin lies? Not in who they are - but what they do?

Definition of HOMOSEXUAL
1
: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2
: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

An act can be both a desire or physical action. So just because a person does not physically act on a desire, does not mean the desire itself is not a sin.

Those with ONLY SSA do not desire to be with the opposite sex. They see SSA as a vice that needs to be dealt with. It is their cross.

I just think the terms need to be properly used in this situation. But I could be wrong!

 

[Tigg]

Do you find it problematic that a person can claim to be a heterosexual but then claim to live a chaste life? Or do you assume that everyone who identifies themselves as a heterosexual is having sex?

Same with the homosexual. Just because a person is attracted to the same sex doesn’t mean they are having sex. And isn’t that where the sin lies? Not in who they are - but what they do?

There is such a thing as temptation and avoiding circumstances that can bring it about. We are talking about young boys ages 10-18 who may be all over the place struggling with emotions and misunderstandings of who they are and their true self.

 

[yellowbird]

Bob (and friends here). . . this really has nothing to do with chastity and chaste scouts.

It has nothing to do with “loving the sinner”.

Instead, the organization forces us to treat homosexuality as a perfect MORAL equivalent to heterosexuality.

The BSA has been co-opted to join the activists in the redefinition of values.

I wonder what the scout leaders had to say about mastrubation? If the scout admitted he did this - or was found doing this I wonder if he was kicked out of the scouts?

I would venture to guess that a VERY large percentage of teenage BS have mastrubated. If the Boy Scouts don’t speak out about that rampant sin, isn’t that similar to accepting that it’s perfectly MORAL? Wouldn’t their silence on mastrubation be a redefinition of our values?

And yet nobody demands they do that. Nobody says kick out the mastrubaters? Why?? Could it be that most men have struggled with this sin? People in glass houses and all that.

Same with the Scout leaders… how many use artificial birth control? Or have had vasectomies with no regrets? Why aren’t we all up in arms over those sinners? Wondering why we allow our boys to be in their company? Worried our boys will be corrupted? Because let’s be honest, our boys are MUCH more likely to grow up mastrubating and using ABC than becoming a homosexual… but it’s the homosexuals everyone seems to fear.

 

[tominrichmond]

To stay in BSA is to be a tool of the homoactivists who have won this first battle, over the objections of 70% of the scouting membership. The BSA has no regard for its members’ views; has engaged in a lying, manipulative campaign to gain this change, and there is zero reason to expect that it will end with this first step. After all, the game plan of all revolutionaries is to get people to agree with incremental, relatively inoffensive steps, which eventually lead to their ultimate goal, in this case, the homosexualization of scouting, or in the alternative, the destruction of this organization which until now was one of the very few institutions to tell the truth about homosexuality, and thus forbade their participation in the program.

Even from a Catholic viewpoint, allowing a self-identified homosexual youth into the program is wrong, because while acting on the impulses is immoral, even having the attraction is disordered, and such a youth needs help and counselling, not to be put into a situation where temptation will be rife.

 

[yellowbird]

An act can be both a desire or physical action. So just because a person does not physically act on a desire, does not mean the desire itself is not a sin.

You are wrong. Temptation (or desire) is NOT a sin. Jesus was tempted by the Devil, yet remained sinless.

 

[Tigg]

When one claims to be “gay” or “homosexual”, it is implied they are accepting of it since they are willing to share the information and feel no shame about the disordered condition. A person that is a heterosexual does not define himself that way. He is just a person, just like a homosexual. I don’t go around finding ways to let people know that I am a heterosexual. I don’t say, “I am a heterosexual”. Also, being a heterosexual or a person with OSA is not disordered. So even if I did go around saying I was a heterosexual, I still would not be defining myself by sin. I don’t think your point is relative since homosexuals and heterosexuals use the terms for different reasons.

Definition of HOMOSEXUAL
1
: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2
: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

An act can be both a desire or physical action. So just because a person does not physically act on a desire, does not mean the desire itself is not a sin.

Those with ONLY SSA do not desire to be with the opposite sex. They see SSA as a vice that needs to be dealt with. It is their cross.

I just think the terms need to be properly used in this situation. But I could be wrong!

BUMP this post for significance!

 

[yellowbird]

An act can be both a desire or physical action. So just because a person does not physically act on a desire, does not mean the desire itself is not a sin.

Those with ONLY SSA do not desire to be with the opposite sex. They see SSA as a vice that needs to be dealt with. It is their cross.

I just think the terms need to be properly used in this situation. But I could be wrong!

You are wrong. Temptation (or desire) is NOT a sin. Jesus was tempted by the Devil, yet remained sinless because he did not act upon it

We don’t confess our desires - we confess our actions.

If a strong “desire” = sin, then practically every 17 year old boy is guilty of sinning because almost all have a desire to have sex.

 

[Tigg]

You are wrong. Temptation (or desire) is NOT a sin. Jesus was tempted by the Devil, yet remained sinless because he did not act upon it

We don’t confess our desires - we confess our actions.

There is more to it than than - Jesus said any man who has lusted in his heart for a woman has already committed adultery. Look at the 6th and 9th commandments and the sins that may be committed against chastity without any physical act at all, but by merely succumbing to a unchaste pleasurable desire.

 

[yellowbird]

There is more to it than than - Jesus said any man who has lusted in his heart for a woman has already committed adultery. Look at the 6th and 9th commandments and the sins that may be committed against chastity without any physical act at all, but by merely succumbing to a unchaste pleasurable desire.

catholic.com/video/temptation-what-is-it-and-when-does-it-become-sin

4:05

“Sin always involves a choice, some choice on our part.”

 

[shocktrooper]

You are wrong. Temptation (or desire) is NOT a sin. Jesus was tempted by the Devil, yet remained sinless because he did not act upon it

We don’t confess our desires - we confess our actions.

If a strong “desire” = sin, then practically every 17 year old boy is guilty of sinning because almost all have a desire to have sex.

One can be tempted while not desiring the temptation nor the object of the temptation. If you entertain the thought or temptation in thought or deed, then you have given into your passions and have sinned. I don’t think I would consider a simple passing thought or temptation that is immediately checked to be a desire. I do see your concern but I think the two are a little more nuanced than how you portray them.

 

[shocktrooper]

catholic.com/video/temptation-what-is-it-and-when-does-it-become-sin

4:05

“Sin always involves a choice, some choice on our part.”

I agree with everything the good priest said. But I noticed he never conflated desire with temptation. The choice one chooses can be in thought. The word desire never came out of his mouth.

 

[yellowbird]

I agree with everything the good priest said. But I noticed he never conflated desire with temptation. The choice one chooses can be in thought. The word desire never came out of his mouth.

You are reading into his words and addings he didn’t say … I take them at face value and don’t try to bend them to support my own view.

 

[JimG]

I wonder what the scout leaders had to say about mastrubation? If the scout admitted he did this - or was found doing this I wonder if he was kicked out of the scouts?

I would venture to guess that a VERY large percentage of teenage BS have mastrubated. If the Boy Scouts don’t speak out about that rampant sin, isn’t that similar to accepting that it’s perfectly MORAL? Wouldn’t their silence on mastrubation be a redefinition of our values?

And yet nobody demands they do that. Nobody says kick out the mastrubaters? Why?? Could it be that most men have struggled with this sin? People in glass houses and all that.

Same with the Scout leaders… how many use artificial birth control? Or have had vasectomies with no regrets? Why aren’t we all up in arms over those sinners? Wondering why we allow our boys to be in their company? Worried our boys will be corrupted? Because let’s be honest, our boys are MUCH more likely to grow up mastrubating and using ABC than becoAnd yet if the Scouts were to adopt a formal policy that they would not deny membership to open masturbators would people object to such a policy? Most likely they would. Not because it is such an egregious sin as to preclude one from being a Scout, but because identifying oneself by one’s sin or temptation to sin is not a good idea. It tends to put the disorder on a par with the virtue, as if both were equally desirable. ming a homosexual… but it’s the homosexuals everyone seems to fear.

And yet if the Scouts were to adopt a formal policy that they would not deny membership to open masturbators would people object to such a policy? Most likely they would. Not because it is such an egregious sin as to preclude one from being a Scout, but because identifying oneself by one’s sin or temptation to sin is not a good idea. It tends to put the disorder on a par with the virtue, as if both were equally desirable.

 

[shocktrooper]

You are reading into his words and addings he didn’t say … I take them at face value and don’t try to bend them to support my own view.

Again, I agree with everything he said. He gave a perfectly good answer. The reason I brought up the fact that he did not mention desire is because you seem to want to conflate desire with temptation when they are not the same, nor does he seem to think so. Does this now mean you are the one to bend the priest’s comments to support your own view?

 

[Baelor]

non sequitor. If someone is open about thier disordered sexuality, there is reason for concern.

Not necessarily. The disorder is possibly outside of their control. Why is acknowledging reality a cause for concern?

Yes, the sin is with what they do. Yes it is sinful to have sex outside of marrige. But it is also sinful to promote the “gay” lifestyle, to force people to pretend that both orientations are equal, to advocate for homosexual causes such as same-sex marriage. If someone is “openly gay” how likely is it that they will not be also engaging in these sinful activities?

How likely it is is irrelevant. Would you rather make uncharitable assumptions or not? The answer is obvious.

Furthermore, identifying as gay =/= being involved in any sort of activism.

When one claims to be “gay” or “homosexual”, it is implied they are accepting of it since they are willing to share the information and feel no shame about the disordered condition.

I may feel shame about my naturally quick temper. Does sharing this information suddenly mean that I am “accepting of it?”

Talk about a non sequitur.

A person that is a heterosexual does not define himself that way. He is just a person, just like a homosexual.

So you do acknowledge that a homosexual who identifies as such is not actually restricting or collapsing his identity to that plane alone. Are you a Catholic? A man? A woman? Married? Single?

 

[Tigg]

catholic.com/video/temptation-what-is-it-and-when-does-it-become-sin

4:05

“Sin always involves a choice, some choice on our part.”

And your point is??? No one is arguing that we aren’t all tempted and your quote above is correct - but the choice to sin could be something as simple as taking illicit pleasure in an impure thought.

This point, going back to the thread subject, involves consideration that young boys will be thrust into situations with openly gay boys who have a disordered inclination which might unduly influence a good moral choice. Catholic morality teaches we are also to avoid the near occasions of sin and parents should not thrust their children who are still developing virtuous traits into a situation that could lead to confusion and conflict with their faith.

 

[Baelor]

And your point is??? No one is arguing that we aren’t all tempted and your quote above is correct - but the choice to sin could be something as simple as taking illicit pleasure in an impure thought.

This point, going back to the thread subject, involves consideration that young boys will be thrust into situations with openly gay boys who have a disordered inclination which might unduly influence a good moral choice. Catholic morality teaches we are also to avoid the near occasions of sin and parents should not thrust their children who are still developing virtuous traits into a situation that could lead to confusion and conflict with their faith.

The BSA is not a Catholic organization. Parents can react as they will; but viewing this policy change as any failure on the part of BSA is a disturbing perspective because the BSA had no moral authority in the first place.

 

[Corki]

I wonder what the scout leaders had to say about mastrubation? If the scout admitted he did this - or was found doing this I wonder if he was kicked out of the scouts?

I would venture to guess that a VERY large percentage of teenage BS have mastrubated. If the Boy Scouts don’t speak out about that rampant sin, isn’t that similar to accepting that it’s perfectly MORAL? Wouldn’t their silence on mastrubation be a redefinition of our values?

And yet nobody demands they do that. Nobody says kick out the mastrubaters? Why?? Could it be that most men have struggled with this sin? People in glass houses and all that.

Same with the Scout leaders… how many use artificial birth control? Or have had **vasectomies **with no regrets? Why aren’t we all up in arms over those sinners? Wondering why we allow our boys to be in their company? Worried our boys will be corrupted? Because let’s be honest, our boys are MUCH more likely to grow up mastrubating and using ABC than becoming a homosexual… but it’s the homosexuals everyone seems to fear.

All of those things you mentioned are sins but they aren’t reflections of a disordered sexuality. They are a misuse of a rightly ordered sexuality. No one expects the Boy Scouts or the parishes that sponsor them or their pastors of those parishes to be impeccable. Impeccability is not possible in the human condition.

There’s a huge difference between saying "we know that you aren’t perfect and sometimes fall into sin. Try to do better. " and saying “we know that you are advocating something that is clearly against Church teaching and we will allow you to do that with impunity”. The former is a faithful Catholic approach and consistent with the way things were before with the BSA. The latter is what parishes are being asked to do now and it is inconsistent with Catholicism.

 

[Baelor]

All of those things you mentioned are sins but they aren’t reflections of a disordered sexuality.

Masturbation is not something restricted to heterosexuals.

No one expects the Boy Scouts or the parishes that sponsor them or their pastors of those parishes to be impeccable. Impeccability is not possible in the human condition.

Logical fallacy. No one is calling for impeccability, but the BSA does not align with the Church institutionally, so why should its specific policies be subject to the Church’s teachings?

The former is a faithful Catholic approach and consistent with the way things were before with the BSA. The latter is what parishes are being asked to do now and it is inconsistent with Catholicism.

Giving individuals membership is not the same as endorsing the actions or positions of the members.