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

[Baelor]

Baelor, I have been around a long time, but have never personally known a boy scout, unless you mean Explorer Scout, between 17 and 20, although I don’t doubt there are some, perhaps many.

There are Venture Scouts. There are also Boy Scouts who have not yet completed high school.

 

[shocktrooper]

shocktrooper,

I may be naive or uninformed, but just how did the church open the door to homosexuals in the 60’s and 70’s? The church has always had a policy of loving the sinner while hating the sin, and this predates the Second Vatican Council. A sexual revolution took place in the 60’s and 70’s, but that was a secular event, not related to the Church as far as I can see. I lived through that period. Peace. James

The seminaries were opened to homosexuals. I will not go so far as to say this was an official position of Rome but it surely happened in America.

If I am not mistaken, an open homosexual would be passed over these days and not qualify for the priesthood.

Keep in mind that a parish priest is a “secular priest”. He is easily impacted by the secular world around him, both before and after becoming a priest.

 

[CopticChristian]

Or a rabid antisemite.

This is not true and has been discussed elsewhere and understood as explained by Edwin. I will look for the explanation for you. You are wrong on this point.

 

[CopticChristian]

Ah, I see! I didn’t include that quote to emphasize gay marriage – or even introduce it into the conversation – “I don’t want to derail the thread, but these conversations always seem to lead back to the same central question: is homosexuality a choice?”

**but to point out that a majority of Catholics don’t believe that homosexuality is a choice. Which is why I prefaced the quote with, **

You speak for the majority of Catholics?

Where did you get this information that you speak on behalf of the majority?

Where is this majority you speak of?

Show me the data for this notion of what the majority of Catholics believe?

 

[CopticChristian]

Is there a difference between “SSA” and pedophilia for you?

Someone with SSA may be a pedophile.

Someone with SSA is not necessarily a pedophile.

A pedophile is someone with an exclusive interest in children and if that child is of the same sex then more likely than not that pedophile has SSA.

A pedophile is someone with an exclusive interest in children and if that child is of the opposite sex then that pedophile does not have SSA.

 

[CopticChristian]

They are pedophiles, NOT typical gay people. The latter do not, as a rule, molest children. The vast majority of child molesters for either boys or girls are straight men, taking into account the numbers of straight and gay males. Some of these priests may also have been gay, but that is more the exception than the rule.

Meltz,

there is no such thing as a “typical gay” for to say that then there must be an “atypical gay” or all other manner of gay…

 

[gracepoole]

You speak for the majority of Catholics?

Where did you get this information that you speak on behalf of the majority?

Where is this majority you speak of?

Show me the data for this notion of what the majority of Catholics believe?

sigh Please see post #181.

 

[CopticChristian]

sigh Please see post #181.

“hgis”

(I don’t want to derail the thread, but these conversations always seem to lead back to the same central question: is homosexuality a choice? I think it’s how one answers this question that changes his or her responses to issues like this one with the BSA. For example: “But a recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) suggests 59% of American Catholics support rights allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry. One reason behind that statistic - says PRRI CEO Robert P. Jones - is because U.S. Catholics ‘overwhelmingly reject the idea that sexual orientation can be changed.’ A PRRI poll bears that out – with 69% of Catholics nationwide saying a person’s sexual orientation cannot be changed.” religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/0…-sex-marriage/)

I do not see the number sampled and samplings do not equate to what you speak of as in “majority”…

“hgis”

 

[gracepoole]

I honestly don’t know. I’m trained to speak about bystanders so the idea isn’t at all foreign to me. But significant problems developed for homosexuals via the military’s one-time “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

(I don’t want to derail the thread, but these conversations always seem to lead back to the same central question: is homosexuality a choice? I think it’s how one answers this question that changes his or her responses to issues like this one with the BSA. For example: “But a recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) suggests 59% of American Catholics support rights allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry. One reason behind that statistic - says PRRI CEO Robert P. Jones - is because U.S. Catholics ‘overwhelmingly reject the idea that sexual orientation can be changed.’ A PRRI poll bears that out – with 69% of Catholics nationwide saying a person’s sexual orientation cannot be changed.” religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/20/can-true-catholics-support-same-sex-marriage/)

“hgis”

I do not see the number sampled and samplings do not equate to what you speak of as in “majority”…

“hgis”

Here: publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Catholics-and-LGBT-Issues-Survey-Report.pdf

 

[yellowbird]

The seminaries were opened to homosexuals. I will not go so far as to say this was an official position of Rome but it surely happened in America.

If I am not mistaken, an open homosexual would be passed over these days and not qualify for the priesthood.

Keep in mind that a parish priest is a “secular priest”. He is easily impacted by the secular world around him, both before and after becoming a priest.

So prior to the 1960s were the seminaries closed to homosexuals? Our Church is 2,000 years old. Were homosexual men turned away from the priesthood for 1,960 years, then allowed in for two decades? And those two decades are responsible for the downfall of our Church? I’m trying to understand you here…

 

[richard_harp]

There are several reasons that are obviously apparent. One: the rule of attraction. If i or any man is placed in the company of vulnerble girl scouts…I may not be a predator, but I am not dead, and if they treat me as one of their own, letting their guard down,. Changing clothes in front of me, when I see that naked body I will be aroused. Not a predatory response necessasrily, but certainly a scratch that would like to be itched. Why do young boys look at the female body in say Playboy and masturbate, because it turns them on…this isn’t rocket science, although there are those who are pushing for this, can anyone smell a red herring here. You do not let girls in high school shower with the guys, why would you want those who are attracted to the same sex shower with those who they are turned on by. I belonged to a spa…and there were holes torn in the curtains to oogle @ those who excited them.sexually. Let the real truth be put out there. There is an old story, that is hoary with frost; “a stinging scorpion could not cross this stream, and so he asked the turtle if he could hitch a ride. “The turtle immediately responded as any rational turtle would.” I know you, you will sting me.” The scorpian said, “never, not in a million years would I break my word, it is my bond” The turtle said “climb aboard” just as they were reaching the other shore, sure enough the scorpion, being a scorpion, stung him, fortunately it was not a large of enough sting to kill the turtle, but it had enough to cause him great pain, and a lifetime of bad memories. It only takes one kid to be abused to be too many. Tie your liberal views to another fight, one that doesn’t make prey out of our most precious commodity, our children. We have a responsibility to keep them safe, which the church is feeling great pain, because they created a system of men and women celebates. God made us sexual beings, and those who have control over the most vulnerable of our society will express his/her God given appetite for sex, in a way that robs children of their most precious treasure, their innocense.

 

[richard_harp]

There are several reasons that are obviously apparent. One: the rule of attraction. If i or any man is placed in the company of vulnerble girl scouts…I may not be a predator, but I am not dead, and if they treat me as one of their own, letting their guard down,. Changing clothes in front of me, when I see that naked body I will be aroused. Not a predatory response necessasrily, but certainly a scratch that would like to be itched. Why do young boys look at the female body in say Playboy and masturbate, because it turns them on…this isn’t rocket science, although there are those who are pushing for this, can anyone smell a red herring here. You do not let girls in high school shower with the guys, why would you want those who are attracted to the same sex shower with those who they are turned on by. I belonged to a spa…and there were holes torn in the curtains to oogle @ those who excited them.sexually. Let the real truth be put out there. There is an old story, that is hoary with frost; “a stinging scorpion could not cross this stream, and so he asked the turtle if he could hitch a ride. “The turtle immediately responded as any rational turtle would.” I know you, you will sting me.” The scorpian said, “never, not in a million years would I break my word, it is my bond” The turtle said “climb aboard” just as they were reaching the other shore, sure enough the scorpion, being a scorpion, stung him, fortunately it was not a large of enough sting to kill the turtle, but it had enough to cause him great pain, and a lifetime of bad memories. It only takes one kid to be abused to be too many. Tie your liberal views to another fight, one that doesn’t make prey out of our most precious commodity, our children. We have a responsibility to keep them safe, which the church is feeling great pain, because they created a system of men and women celebates. God made us sexual beings, and those who have control over the most vulnerable of our society will express his/her God given appetite for sex, in a way that robs children of their most precious treasure, their innocense.

 

[JamesCaruso]

The seminaries were opened to homosexuals.

Cite?

Are you saying there was a deliberate attempt to include homosexuals in that era only? There once was the thinking that because of the vow of chastity, homosexuality should not be a disqualifying factor. But when that began, or whether it became more prevalent in the 60’s and 70’s, I cannot say. Because of the child molestation scandals, screening has become better.

 

[shocktrooper]

Cite?

Are you saying there was a deliberate attempt to include homosexuals in that era only? There once was the thinking that because of the vow of chastity, homosexuality should not be a disqualifying factor. But when that began, or whether it became more prevalent in the 60’s and 70’s, I cannot say. Because of the child molestation scandals, screening has become better.

This sides more with you on whether the seminaries were opened to gays in the 60s and 70s or if they were always open to gays.

When priests who abused minors are grouped by the
decade of their ordination to the priesthood, each
group displays a distinct pattern of behavior. The
social influences can be seen in the behavior of each
ordination group, or “cohort.” Men ordained in the
1930s, 1940s, and 1950s did not generally abuse before
the 1960s or 1970s. Men ordained in the 1960s and
the early 1970s engaged in abusive behavior much
more quickly after their entrance into ministry.
•
The ordination cohorts of men entering the priest-
hood before 1960, and before any moderation of the
regimentation of seminary life, represent 44 percent of
those later accused of abuse.
•
There was no evidence of any significant level of sex-
ual activity among seminarians before the mid-1970s.
The men ordained after 1975 had a lower level of sub-
sequent abuse.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Causes-and-Context-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-in-the-United-States-1950-2010.pdf

 

[shocktrooper]

B16

Even Peter Seewald, the Pope’s interviewer, responds to his remarks by saying:

“But there is no doubt that homosexuality exists in monasteries and among the clergy, if not acted out, then at least in a nonpracticed form.”

To which Benedict replies:

“Well, that is just one of the disturbing problems of the Church. And the persons who are affected must at least try not to express this inclination actively, in order to remain true to the intrinsic mission of their office.”

What will all this matter in practice? “Pope wrong again” is hardly a headline to set the secular world on fire. But it will certainly encourage the Catholic Right to attempt to weed out gays from seminaries. This is, as I have said, impossible, but it is also likely to lead to further nasty and bitter infighting. Until now, liberals have held the line by referring to the passage in the earlier denunciation about “deep-rooted” homosexual tendencies. This allowed seminary directors to pretend that men whom they thought could stay celibate were not deep-rootedly gay at all. But these remarks drop that qualification:

“The issue at stake here is the intrinsic truth of sexuality’s significance in the constitution of man’s being. If someone has deep-seated homosexual inclinations–and it is still an open question whether these inclinations are really innate or whether they arise in early childhood–if, in any case, they have power over him, this is a great trial for him, just as other trials can afflict other people as well. But this does not mean that homosexuality thereby becomes morally right. Rather, it remains contrary to the essence of what God originally willed … For, in the end, their attitude toward man and woman is somehow distorted, off centre, and, in any case, is not within the direction of creation of which we have spoken.”

awrsipe.com/Click_and_Learn/pope-bans-gay-priests.html

 

[yellowbird]

This sides more with you on whether the seminaries were opened to gays in the 60s and 70s or if they were always open to gays.

When priests who abused minors are grouped by the
decade of their ordination to the priesthood, each
group displays a distinct pattern of behavior. The
social influences can be seen in the behavior of each
ordination group, or “cohort.” Men ordained in the
1930s, 1940s, and 1950s did not generally abuse before
the 1960s or 1970s. Men ordained in the 1960s and
the early 1970s engaged in abusive behavior much
more quickly after their entrance into ministry.
•
The ordination cohorts of men entering the priest-
hood before 1960, and before any moderation of the
regimentation of seminary life, represent 44 percent of
those later accused of abuse.
•
There was no evidence of any significant level of sex-
ual activity among seminarians before the mid-1970s.
The men ordained after 1975 had a lower level of sub-
sequent abuse.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Causes-and-Context-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-in-the-United-States-1950-2010.pdf

There is no new sin… I imagine there has always been a % of Priests who have abused but families kept it quiet because of shame or tried to report it but nobody did anything about it. Also we didn’t have the widespread media coverage… how would people even know if the Priest five towns over were messing with kids?

Not buying your they let gays in and all hell broke loose…

 

[yellowbird]

There are several reasons that are obviously apparent. One: the rule of attraction. If i or any man is placed in the company of vulnerble girl scouts…I may not be a predator, but I am not dead, and if they treat me as one of their own, letting their guard down,. Changing clothes in front of me, when I see that naked body I will be aroused. Not a predatory response necessasrily, but certainly a scratch that would like to be itched. .

I am repulsed by the thought that you would be aroused by the sight of a young girl getting changed and have a “scratch that would like to be itched.”

To be on the safe side, I sincerely hope you avoid contact with children. Who knows what else young girls might do to arouse you.

 

[CopticChristian]

Here: publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Catholics-and-LGBT-Issues-Survey-Report.pdf

The best you can say based on the information you provided as I understand it is this…

Results of the Post‐Election American Values Survey were based on 1,494 callbackinterviews with respondents from the Pre‐election American Values Survey, which was fielded in early September 2010 among a national random sample of 3,013 adults (age
18 and older). Telephone interviews for the Post‐Election American Values Survey were
conducted in both English and Spanish from November 3‐7, 2010.

It appears that the number sampled was 3013 adults…

pewresearch.org/2013/02/25/u-s-catholics-key-data-from-pew-research/#popsize

The number of Catholics in the USA appears to be 75,380,00. Therefore the sampling that is used for the % is 3013/75,380,000.

There is always an inherent bias in poll data.

You cannot say anything about the majority of Catholic beliefs because the sampling does not represent the majority of Catholics.

To be honest all you can say is that based on polling of less than a majority of Catholics data was obtained that is open to discussion as it concerns Catholic beliefs and you cannot state with certaintiy

But a recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) suggests 59% of American Catholics support rights allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry. One reason behind that statistic - says PRRI CEO Robert P. Jones - is because U.S. Catholics ‘overwhelmingly reject the idea that sexual orientation can be changed.’ A PRRI poll bears that out – with 69% of Catholics nationwide saying a person’s sexual orientation cannot be changed."

That these numbers represent anything but the results of a Poll…

Polling from various areas would yield different results…and if you look here…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=769113

**The Reformation for Secular Homosexual thinking **

If you did a Poll of Catholic members of the Catholic medical Association, Catholic Psychiatric Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, Catholic Social Workers National Association, then I would imagine that the majority opinions as you have found them in these polls would be different…

**but to point out that a majority of Catholics don’t believe that homosexuality is a choice. Which is why I prefaced the quote with, **

your point above is incorrect and only indicates the results of a poll and more likely than not a believed bias you want to promote…you cannot state anything based on this poll with certainty other than you personal bias you wish to support with data from a Poll

Hgis

 

[Holly3278]

I don’t see anything wrong with allowing openly gay scouts unless by openly gay they mean someone who is gay and who is even “proud” of being gay and who says there is nothing wrong with the gay lifestyle. However, that is not how I understand it. From what I understand they do require scouts to live a morally upright life just as the Catholic Church does.

 

[JamesCaruso]

This sides more with you on whether the seminaries were opened to gays in the 60s and 70s or if they were always open to gays.

When priests who abused minors are grouped by the
decade of their ordination to the priesthood, each
group displays a distinct pattern of behavior. The
social influences can be seen in the behavior of each
ordination group, or “cohort.” Men ordained in the
1930s, 1940s, and 1950s did not generally abuse before
the 1960s or 1970s. Men ordained in the 1960s and
the early 1970s engaged in abusive behavior much
more quickly after their entrance into ministry.
•
The ordination cohorts of men entering the priest-
hood before 1960, and before any moderation of the
regimentation of seminary life, represent 44 percent of
those later accused of abuse.
•
There was no evidence of any significant level of sex-
ual activity among seminarians before the mid-1970s.
The men ordained after 1975 had a lower level of sub-
sequent abuse.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Causes-and-Context-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-in-the-United-States-1950-2010.pdf

I agree. It seems to show the influence of the sexual revolution of the 60’s or thereabouts on those entering the priesthood.

I would venture to say that the growing secularism of post-World War II has left its mark on the Church through both laity and priesthood, from the mismatch of the Second Vatican Council and its implementation, to the excessive casualness and at time irreverence witnessed at the Mass, to the open criticism of established Church doctrine among Catholics, to defiance of Church teaching in practice, to the false sense of democratic rights among some of its members.

Do you think I am overstating the case?