Catholic Boy Scouts Substitute: Scouts Of St. George

[HisChildForever]

Because you can organize it and make it a huge thing in the Catholic world. If you just did small unorganized camping stuff, barely anyone would do it. If this takes off, it could become a very big organization.

 

Do you think there's potential for it to take off? 

[Basilisa Marie]

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that this current debate on the never ending debate on Homosexuality wasn't really started by defenders of those who want to form groups like Scouts of St. George. It was started by those who detract from the formation of such a group because they didn't like the reason why it was created, and then preceded to pass judgement or just a little bit of shame upon those who would want to break away from the BSA because they fell it has begun to abandon christian morals. So it's a bit unfair to bring in the perceived unbalance between the condemnation of homosexual sins and heterosexual sins.

 

Other people talked about the perceived unbalance between the condemnation of homosexual sins and heterosexual sins in this thread, so I thought it was appropriate to mention in my post.  And I think one of the issues circling around the BSA policy change debate is the perceived difference between how homosexual and heterosexual people are treated, so I think it's relevant.  

 

I'm not sure it matters who started it, and it doesn't seem to me like people want to bring shame on those who want to break with the BSA. It seems to me that some people have problems with the Scouts of St. George because it looks like it was founded explicitly to exclude anyone who identifies as gay.  Whether or not that is true or will turn out to be true in the future or will turn out to be the best thing for aspiring scouts since pocket fire starters has yet to be seen.  Some people think it's sketchy.  They're allowed to say that they think it's sketchy.   :idontknow:

[KnightofChrist]

Other people talked about the perceived unbalance between the condemnation of homosexual sins and heterosexual sins in this thread, so I thought it was appropriate to mention in my post.  And I think one of the issues circling around the BSA policy change debate is the perceived difference between how homosexual and heterosexual people are treated, so I think it's relevant.  
 
I'm not sure it matters who started it, and it doesn't seem to me like people want to bring shame on those who want to break with the BSA. It seems to me that some people have problems with the Scouts of St. George because it looks like it was founded explicitly to exclude anyone who identifies as gay.  Whether or not that is true or will turn out to be true in the future or will turn out to be the best thing for aspiring scouts since pocket fire starters has yet to be seen.  Some people think it's sketchy.  They're allowed to say that they think it's sketchy.   :idontknow:

I think people are making those that want to break away and form another Scout organization because of the BSA decision into bad guys or intolerant people. I think it matters that those who wanted to talk about forming a new Scouts group didn't really want to have another debate about homosexuality, but rather starting up the new Scouts. I believe the objections are in error, in that it is not immoral or wrong to exclude openly homosexual persons from being members of a Catholic institution. The Catholic Church excludes openly homosexual men from the priesthood and that is not wrong either.

You all are allowed to believe whatever it is you wish, you are simply in error and wrong to make the founders of the Scouts of Saint George or others who may want to make similar scouts groups for similar reasons to be the bad guys. They are not.

[PhuturePriest]

Do you think there's potential for it to take off? 

 

Absolutely. Why wouldn't there be? Baden Powell didn't start off the Boy Scouts as a huge organization. He started off with just a few boys who wanted to camp, and he made rules and teachings for them to follow throughout their life. Now it's the biggest camping organization in the world. There's always potential for things to take off. It's how you run it that makes a difference. If they run the Scouts of Saint George well, then yes, I believe it will take off. But if not, it will be just another nice idea.

[Luigi]

I was thinking the same. First gays, then tofu stew...BSA must be about to implement an annual Campfire Cross-Dress. Get out while you can!!

 

This isn't just the Slippery Slope logical fallacy, this is the Jump to the Most Extreme Possible Example logical fallacy.

[Luigi]

... their club.

 

 

Blah blah blah... it's all very Tradition Family Property-ish. There's nothing wrong with it but I think it ought to give all right thinking Christians the willies.

 

It's a lot more than a club.

 

 

Tradition Family Property - HORRORS! first of all, property hasn't shown up in any of the discussion so far. Second of all, the Catholic Church supports all three. You got a problem with that? Or with Tradion, Family, or Property?

[Socrates]

Not completely true, outside organizations actually forced the BSA, by withholding commercial funding and a shame campaign, to make this first step, and yes it is just the first step to accepting Homosexuality fully.  When the open homosexual boys that are now allowed to join grow up to be men you don't think they'll want to rejoin and become Troop Masters? You don't think they'll cry discrimination? They will and they will also want their 'lifestyle' to be accepted and seen as normal as well. This move will embolden those who what the BSA to fully accept homosexual activity, which has been their goal all along. This move should and can be a legitimate wake up call to Catholic/Christian families who do not want their children belonging to such an organization.

 

I agree with this fully, and with your other posts on here.  This decision, which was politically-motivated, will likely open the door to all kinds of problems not-so-far down the road.  It will not end with simply accepting members who have SSA (which I doubt was ever really an issue anyway) - but will likely result in further demands for approval and acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, with action taken against those who oppose such measures on moral grounds. 

 

So you don't think it's a "coincidence" that this is happening right after the BSA decided to okay gay kids into Scouts? 

 

No, it's not a coincidence, but as other have pointed out, once acceptance of homosexuality becomes written as official policy, it will likely open the path for further problems, and I don't think there's anything wrong with Catholics deciding that this decision is a step too far.  

If I have any sons, I would not want them involved in an organization which officially condones homosexuality in any way.

Exactly at what point do you think it acceptable for Catholics to say "no more," and start actively standing up for moral principle?

 

 

What I do find troubling is that so many on a Catholic site seem to be so quick to judge and condemn anybody who is not on board with the whole "gay rights" bandwagon.  

 

Taylor Marshall happens to be a fellow parishioner at my church, and seems from both what I know of him in person, and from his blog, to be a good family man, as well as a sincere and passionate Catholic (a convert from being an Anglican priest), who has dedicated much of his life to the Faith.

Quite frankly, I think it wrong for people on here who do not know him to be so quick to judge him as having evil or sinister motives for starting this organization, and doing what I am sure he intends to be the right thing.

 

As for claims by some that Dr. Marshall's group is unduly focused against homosexuality, at the expense of other sexual sins, this quote should be noted:

We have high moral standards. The SSG are called to high standards. Alcoholism, adultery, fornication, and any other transgressions against the doctrinal or moral teaching of the Catholic Church will not be tolerated in the adult leaders or with the scouts. The SSG should be exemplars of virtue in their community.

 

I think it's rather disturbing that Catholics here are getting worked up against a man trying to start a private, voluntary organization group that is explicitly Catholic, and stands up for Catholic moral principles.  Certainly no one is being forced to join this group, or to avoid the Boy Scouts, if that is what they prefer.  Like anything else, this group could go well or badly, depending on how it is run, but I have nothing against it in principle.

 

(All the nit-picking negativity and bashing of Catholic traditionalists and conservatives on this site is especially bizarre given all the immense damage that has been done by the Mahoneys of the Church.)

 

It seems that the people who are always urging "tolerance" and against being "judgmental" when it comes to homosexual issues, are remarkably intolerant and judgmental of anybody whose views on the topic are not in line with pc thought.

[Aloysius]

CCC 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. 

 

excluding people who identify as homosexuals from a general Catholic organization is just like forbidding prostitutes from dining with Jesus.  it's wrong, and the reactionaries throwing a nutty over the BSA's rather sensible policy are wrong.  sexual activity at that age remains against the Boy Scout code, and obviously that gets broken but is good to remain as an ideal for the Boy Scouts.

 

they can be excluding from particular roles, like the role of a priest, or a scout leader, or whatever, if one has the sense that their sexuality would come into conflict with them imparting certain values, or their public actions would cause scandal by making it seem like the organization supported their lifestyle, or it kept them from being able to properly fulfill the duties inherent to a given vocation (like celibacy, which is meant to be the giving up of the natural good for the supernatural better, so if all they're doing is giving up something sinful for celibacy it presents some problematics with the purity of the sacrifice)... but simply discriminating against them for general membership like this is something I find disgusting and wrong.  the organization itself ought to maintain its Christian values that do not approve of homosexual behavior, but that does not mean they should discriminate their membership against people who have same sex attraction.  If we start doing things like that, if we refuse to dine with prostitutes, then how will anyone come to know the appeal of the Christian sexual ethic we all are called to aspire to? Only through acceptance of such people can we ever really express this sexual ethic to them? 

 

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

too many people politicize the issue to the point that they forget to treat it spiritually not politically, to treat these people as people rather than pawns in our game to make a political point about how we want society to be.  reactions like this do nothing but increase the perception that the Christian sexual ethic is filled with nothing but hatred... we ought to express it as love.

[Socrates]

And I can't speak to the others who are supporting this movement, but I myself would be perfectly happy with allowing scouts and leaders who struggle with SSA into the unit. Just like I wouldn't be okay with kicking a kid out who struggled with pornography or masturbation. As long as it was a struggle, and not something that they were embracing. Everyone struggles with sin. But in a Catholic Scout unit, it's not okay to openly embrace sin.

 

If I were in charge, I would have a problem with a kid bringing/sharing pornographic material with him to Scout activities, or if he kept talking about porn and masturbation to others, if this became a problem brought to my attention.

 

As far as I know, kids weren't being grilled over their private sexual "orientation" on joining the scouts - there would probably be no problem unless Scouts somehow made their homosexuality public.

I think the BSA decision regarding homosexuality was political in motivation, and will likely not end with mere tolerance of private "orientation."  It will open up a whole can of worms.

[Maggyie]

It's a lot more than a club.

 

 

Tradition Family Property - HORRORS! first of all, property hasn't shown up in any of the discussion so far. Second of all, the Catholic Church supports all three. You got a problem with that? Or with Tradion, Family, or Property?

 

Yes I have a problem with TFP.

 

I find them creepy.

 

Here's another hilarious part of this organization's manifesto:

 

The Blessed Virgin Mary was without sin, all holy, all wise, and the most perfect creature of all. Yet God still placed Saint Joseph into Christ’s life. Mary facilitated. However, Mary did not teach Jesus how to carve wood. She left that to Joseph.

 

as part of an explanation for why mothers aren't allowed to be involved in the SSG.

 

Keep in mind - I am not a feminist! And I have nooooo problem with gals not being involved in the SSG.

 

But do these individuals seriously believe that a mother's role in her son's life should be limited to what the BVM did or did not do for Jesus?

 

Pro tip for having a devotion to the Holy Family: You're supposed to imitate their virtues, not necessarily imitate everything they did/wore/said.

 

I could go on but I'll stop now.

 

I just wish cool-sounding stuff like the SSG didn't come wrapped up in a big ribbon and a sticker saying Cranks R Us.

[Apotheoun]

The Church has said that it is not a form of unjust discrimination to exclude a person from certain organizations (or even jobs and places of residence) based upon that individual's embracing of an identity that is contrary to human nature as willed by God. It is one thing if a person is struggling with same-sex attraction and quite another if he has embraced that disorder as some kind of personal identifying characteristic.

[filius_angelorum]

"some kind of" The fact is that the Church has ALSO provided ministries dedicated to serving those who self-identify as gays, lesbians, bi, etc., and that most of those ministries do not ask them to renounce a particular identity, considered as such, but a behavior. However, different youths from different cultures and religions might "self-identify" differently, and in sexual matters, young people are notoriously unstable. Both of these issues are dealt with in the BSA document, and basically it states that "we don't care what you call yourself" (that's between you and your clergy or you and your psychologists), what we care about is what you do. Catholics should have no real objection to this kind of language from a secular organization.

 

Some have said that this thread has been not-so-subtly turned around to make others 'feel bad' about turning their backs on the BSA, as if they didn't have a right to take their children to join whatever organization they wish. I am not concerned with such an issue. However, it would send ENTIRELY the wrong message about the Church's stance on homosexuals if a parish or Catholic organization were to stop sponsoring the Boy Scouts in their parish or to stop encouraging membership in the organization on the basis of this decision. If it closes for lack of interest, that's one thing, but if I were a parish priest, I would have serious words with parishioners who tried to brow-beat me into closing the parish's Boy Scout troop or to unduly influence other parents' children not to join. I would take this as an opportunity to talk about the Scouts, to re-affirm my parish's support for them, and to renew our community's dedication to preserving the identity of the Boy Scouts as an organization.

[Socrates]

Yes I have a problem with TFP.

 

I find them creepy.

 

I find the whole sick phenomena known as "liberal  Catholicism" to be extremely creepy, and worse than creepy, as it has already done untold very real damage to the Church.  (Including but hardly limited to liberal archbishops actively opposing orthodox Church teaching and pushing immoral and heterodox agendas while actively covering up priestly sex abusers.)

 

But that's another topic.  Let's get our panties all in a wad over proposed traditional scouting groups that are not sufficiently politically correct, and other such horrors.

 

There are some very serious problems in the Church, but I don't think traditionalist "boys only" clubs are among them.

 

 

 

Here's another hilarious part of this organization's manifesto:

 

 

as part of an explanation for why mothers aren't allowed to be involved in the SSG.

 

Keep in mind - I am not a feminist! And I have nooooo problem with gals not being involved in the SSG.

 

But do these individuals seriously believe that a mother's role in her son's life should be limited to what the BVM did or did not do for Jesus?

 

Pro tip for having a devotion to the Holy Family: You're supposed to imitate their virtues, not necessarily imitate everything they did/wore/said.

 

I could go on but I'll stop now.

 

 

Yes, please do.

 

Neither me nor my wife (who is hardly a weak push-over) found anything hilarious or problematic, nor I imagine, would most people, men or women, in the parish of which  we and Dr. Marshall are members.  (I imagine traditional parishes and families would largely form the base of this group.)

 

It seems his point was that traditional sex roles and special father-son time doing "man things" together are a good thing (un-pc as the notion might be), and used a positive example of the Holy Family to back this up.

He never said a mother's involvement must be strictly limited to what the Blessed Mother did.  You're extrapolating an awful lot.  (And I think accusing someone you don't even know of being "creepy" because you don't agree with all his ideas is hardly charitable.)

 

Again, on one is making you or your family to be involved with this proposed group, and I don't get the point of the all opposition on here to the existence of such an organization.

 

I just wish cool-sounding stuff like the SSG didn't come wrapped up in a big ribbon and a sticker saying Cranks R Us.

 

Speak for yourself.

[HisChildForever]

This isn't just the Slippery Slope logical fallacy, this is the Jump to the Most Extreme Possible Example logical fallacy.

 

Uh, I was just being silly.  :crazy: 

[Socrates]

excluding people who identify as homosexuals from a general Catholic organization is just like forbidding prostitutes from dining with Jesus.  it's wrong, and the reactionaries throwing a nutty over the BSA's rather sensible policy are wrong.  sexual activity at that age remains against the Boy Scout code, and obviously that gets broken but is good to remain as an ideal for the Boy Scouts.

 

they can be excluding from particular roles, like the role of a priest, or a scout leader, or whatever, if one has the sense that their sexuality would come into conflict with them imparting certain values, or their public actions would cause scandal by making it seem like the organization supported their lifestyle, or it kept them from being able to properly fulfill the duties inherent to a given vocation (like celibacy, which is meant to be the giving up of the natural good for the supernatural better, so if all they're doing is giving up something sinful for celibacy it presents some problematics with the purity of the sacrifice)... but simply discriminating against them for general membership like this is something I find disgusting and wrong.  the organization itself ought to maintain its Christian values that do not approve of homosexual behavior, but that does not mean they should discriminate their membership against people who have same sex attraction.  If we start doing things like that, if we refuse to dine with prostitutes, then how will anyone come to know the appeal of the Christian sexual ethic we all are called to aspire to? Only through acceptance of such people can we ever really express this sexual ethic to them? 

 

 

 

too many people politicize the issue to the point that they forget to treat it spiritually not politically, to treat these people as people rather than pawns in our game to make a political point about how we want society to be.  reactions like this do nothing but increase the perception that the Christian sexual ethic is filled with nothing but hatred... we ought to express it as love.

 

Did you even read Dr. Marshall's description of his proposed group?

 

He didn't even specifically mention homosexuality in it.

 

I'm not seeing any of this hatred you're going on about.  It seems the fixation on homosexuality here is on the part of those attacking Dr, Marshall, rather than Dr. Marshall himself.

 

I'm sure there'd be no problem with someone privately struggling with SSA, but if someone chose to publicly identify himself as "gay," this could be problematic for an organization dedicated to Catholic moral and spiritual principles.

 

Really, I don't see anything here different from the BSA's policies in all the many years before their recent new policy.

 

 

And, yes, Christ dined with prostitutes, forgave them, and called them to repent and sin no more - but it does not follow that nunneries should include brothels, or that Catholic women's groups should give support to prostitution.