Catholic Boy Scouts Substitute: Scouts Of St. George

[Era Might]

From a cursory glance, this group looks like boot camp for culture warriors. Not that I really care that people want to start a group. History is full of strange and half-baked initiatives. If it's worth anything, hopefully it will do some good. If not, it'll fizzle out or become a fanatical ghetto. But even from a purely "fatherish" perspective this group strikes me as...strange. Wouldn't want my sons part of this group, seems way to structured, and hence, artificial. But, anyway, you'll know it by its fruits. Groups depend on the vision of their founders.

[Aloysius]

I was responding to comments in this thread, if those comments misconstrued the nature of the organization then my argument is not with the organization.

 

I do not believe any lay organization should exclude people who identify as homosexuals, however.  they may restrict leadership positions from people who are practicing, that makes sense, but a general blanket discriminatory practice against those who identify as homosexuals is completely unchristian and should be opposed.  the BSA policy is entirely sensible, it doesn't permit practicing gay men to be scout leaders, it simply allows boys who do identify themselves that way to still be members of the organization, because they should NOT be socially ostracized as that would be a hate-filled reaction to those kids who may be confused or struggling, may have bought into the narrative fed to them by society about homosexuality, et cetera; those boys should still be fully part of social life with others, and ANY SIGN of unjust discrimination against them on that matter should be ABSOLUTELY avoided.  if this group is a response to the BSA's change in policy, then I can assume my beef is with them, as if you're trying to do the opposite of the BSA's new sensible policy which doesn't change anything about the Boy Scout's code of ethics for sexuality but merely explicitly refuses to exclude certain people, then I think that is helping to paint the picture that the Catholic sexual ethic is based on a hatred/disgust of real people rather than a moral code calling people to a certain type of behavior.

 

and as I said, restricting celibate vocations from homosexuals can have a logic of its own that makes it permissible.  the problem is basically shunning practicing homosexuals from society, and that is absolutely wrong.  you should be raising your children to understand that there are such people out there, and that they are entirely deserving of our love and friendship, that they should not bully them or discriminate against them in any way, while at the same time upholding the Christian sexual ethic and being open and sincere about that belief.  the BSA's policy makes that possible, and I don't know about this organization but if it does discriminate membership against those who self-identify as homosexuals, then this organization does not make that possible.

[Aloysius]

btw, I don't have any problem with an explicitly Catholic version of the scouts if someone wants to do that.  I get the impression of exclusion of anyone identifying as homosexual based upon the timing here, but there's nothing wrong with an organization formed to be explicitly Catholic and do particularly Catholic things and all that.  however, I think the BSA's recent policy elaboration is an entirely sensible one.

[KnightofChrist]

I was responding to comments in this thread, if those comments misconstrued the nature of the organization then my argument is not with the organization.
 
I do not believe any lay organization should exclude people who identify as homosexuals, however.  they may restrict leadership positions from people who are practicing, that makes sense, but a general blanket discriminatory practice against those who identify as homosexuals is completely unchristian and should be opposed. the BSA policy is entirely sensible, it doesn't permit practicing gay men to be scout leaders, it simply allows boys who do identify themselves that way to still be members of the organization, because they should NOT be socially ostracized as that would be a hate-filled reaction to those kids who may be confused or struggling, may have bought into the narrative fed to them by society about homosexuality, et cetera; those boys should still be fully part of social life with others, and ANY SIGN of unjust discrimination against them on that matter should be ABSOLUTELY avoided. if this group is a response to the BSA's change in policy, then I can assume my beef is with them, as if you're trying to do the opposite of the BSA's new sensible policy which doesn't change anything about the Boy Scout's code of ethics for sexuality but merely explicitly refuses to exclude certain people, then I think that is helping to paint the picture that the Catholic sexual ethic is based on a hatred/disgust of real people rather than a moral code calling people to a certain type of behavior.and as I said, restricting celibate vocations from homosexuals can have a logic of its own that makes it permissible. the problem is basically shunning practicing homosexuals from society, and that is absolutely wrong. you should be raising your children to understand that there are such people out there, and that they are entirely deserving of our love and friendship, that they should not bully them or discriminate against them in any way, while at the same time upholding the Christian sexual ethic and being open and sincere about that belief. the BSA's policy makes that possible, and I don't know about this organization but if it does discriminate membership against those who self-identify as homosexuals, then this organization does not make that possible.

Thank you for your opinion, but as Apo pointed out the Church doesn't really share your opinion. The Church has said that it is not a form of unjust discrimination to exclude a person from certain organizations. And one of those groups are those who self identify as homosexual. It is only 'unchristian' if the Christian view of Charity is co-opted by a wordly point of view of charity. Your position is illogical, relative, lukewarm and contradictory. If you allow open homosexuals to be members you should allow them to be leaders of the lay organization as well. It would be worse to be allowed to become a member and work very hard for years and not be allowed to have a leadership role. It also wrong to have such members and not allow those members to have representation in the leadership of the organization. If they are going to be allowed to be members they should be allowed leaders. If they can't be leaders they shouldn't be members. Trying to have it both ways, or play both sides isn't going to help anything except cause more confusion and scandal. It's just contradictory...

Leader: oh come on in, you're openly homosexual?
Member: Yeah.
Leader: No problemo! We're very accepting and open-minded here.
Member: Can I run for this leadership position?
Leader: Woah... wait you want to help lead this organization too? Well that just changes VERY THING oooh yeah sorry but no..
Member: but why? You said I was welcomed here.
Leader: Because you're openly homosexual, and we don't allow them to be leaders just members know your place.
Member: You're hypocritical.
Leader: No it's logical
Member: Ah no it isn't. You're just drawing the line at the podium and not the door. That's carp. Edited June 14, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Apotheoun]

Duplicate post. 

 

Edited June 14, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

"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. 

That the Catholic Church in some regions has embraced a worldview that is opposed to the teachings of the Holy Fathers on particular issues is nothing new. Just look at the way the liturgy is celebrated in a lot of Catholic parishes and you will see signs of decline in the Roman Church. 

 

No one is homosexual any more than a person is by nature a pedophile or a thief. Disordered passions and the actions that may flow from them do not determine essential being; instead, they reveal the damage done to man's psyche by the fall of Adam, which brought sin and death into the world. Actions can and do reveal man's virtuous character or lack thereof, but they (i.e., actions) - as St. Gregory of Nyssa pointed out over 1,600 years ago - do not define man's essential being, which is by God's design always ordered to the good.

[Luigi]

Uh, I was just being silly.  :crazy: 

 

The rest of us weren't.

 

And neither were you in the other parts of your post. 

[HisChildForever]

The rest of us weren't.

 

And neither were you in the other parts of your post. 

 

That particular post was supposed to be light-hearted. :rolleyes:

[Ice_nine]

Everyone thinks they're right and most people are a-holes about it.

 

Filed under: lessons the internet has taught me.

[Aloysius]

I'd like to know where the Church has said that it is not unjust discrimination to exclude homosexuals from being members of groups, seems like a blatant form of unjust discrimination to me.  I saw Apo make that claim, I have not seen it substantiated.  it has, of course, made it clear that they can be excluded from certain positions, but excluding them from membership is a completely different story, because what you're doing there is basically ostracizing them from social interaction with you, ie refusing to dine with them like Jesus would (thereby giving you the opportunity to express the opportunity for repentance to them as Our Lord did when he dined with prostitutes and tax collectors).  to exclude them from a position of leadership is an entirely different story and there are all sorts of reasons to exclude people who are in publicly scandalous lifestyles from various kinds of leadership positions.

 

and yes, if you allow them to join but do not permit them the possibility of any kind of leadership position, they themselves might have a problem with that and not want to join in the first place.  the point is that we should not socially ostracize them, it's wrong, it's unchristian, and I've never seen the Church endorse doing that.

 

even the Mormons reaffirmed their ties with the boyscouts after this.  I find it appalling that anyone thinks it's okay to socially ostracize boys from these kinds of social organizations on this basis.  the social organizations themselves should, of course, teach the Christian values they are designed around, and they have more of an opportunity to teach such Christian values when they do not unjustly discriminate.

[Aloysius]

That the Catholic Church in some regions has embraced a worldview that is opposed to the teachings of the Holy Fathers on particular issues is nothing new. Just look at the way the liturgy is celebrated in a lot of Catholic parishes and you will see signs of decline in the Roman Church. 

 

No one is homosexual any more than a person is by nature a pedophile or a thief. Disordered passions and the actions that may flow from them do not determine essential being; instead, they reveal the damage done to man's psyche by the fall of Adam, which brought sin and death into the world. Actions can and do reveal man's virtuous character or lack thereof, but they (i.e., actions) - as St. Gregory of Nyssa pointed out over 1,600 years ago - do not define man's essential being, which is by God's design always ordered to the good.

this is a good point, of course, but for those with SSA who have socially defined themselves by the term "homosexual" it makes sense to meet them where they're at.  often this point, which I think is a good one, in some ways has a tendency to build up a straw man of where those people are at, though, because when they define themselves by that term "homosexual" they are generally not defining themselves based on what sexual acts they perform, they're defining themselves according to a broader social group that everyone recognizes of which those acts are just one facet... so going to a homosexual and telling him he's wrong for identifying himself solely by the sexual acts he performs will often fall on deaf ears because, except for the ones that are really into the extremely promiscuous lifestyle, they don't think of themselves as really defining themselves that way.

 

it's like if I identify myself as an "American" and someone comes at me explaining to me that I have this dignity as a human being that cannot be limited to this political institution et cetera et cetera; that's all very well and good, but I definitely already know all that when I say that I'm an American, as does the person who identifies themselves as a homosexual.  it is a very good point though, that people should know that they don't have some essential determined being based on that particular disordered passion.  but there's nothing wrong with the ministries that treat people who identify that way by coming to them where they are, like the organization of Courage or the various ministries that are actually faithful to Church teaching (as opposed to ones like Dignity that are not faithful to Church teaching)

[Era Might]

I'd like to know where the Church has said that it is not unjust discrimination to exclude homosexuals from being members of groups, seems like a blatant form of unjust discrimination to me.  I saw Apo make that claim, I have not seen it substantiated.  it has, of course, made it clear that they can be excluded from certain positions, but excluding them from membership is a completely different story, because what you're doing there is basically ostracizing them from social interaction with you, ie refusing to dine with them like Jesus would (thereby giving you the opportunity to express the opportunity for repentance to them as Our Lord did when he dined with prostitutes and tax collectors).  to exclude them from a position of leadership is an entirely different story and there are all sorts of reasons to exclude people who are in publicly scandalous lifestyles from various kinds of leadership positions.

 

and yes, if you allow them to join but do not permit them the possibility of any kind of leadership position, they themselves might have a problem with that and not want to join in the first place.  the point is that we should not socially ostracize them, it's wrong, it's unchristian, and I've never seen the Church endorse doing that.

 

even the Mormons reaffirmed their ties with the boyscouts after this.  I find it appalling that anyone thinks it's okay to socially ostracize boys from these kinds of social organizations on this basis.  the social organizations themselves should, of course, teach the Christian values they are designed around, and they have more of an opportunity to teach such Christian values when they do not unjustly discriminate.

 

I don't follow the Boy Scouts so don't know much about them, but I think it depends on the nature of the organization. If it is just a "social organization" then I agree there should be a "big tent" approach (kind of like if it was a basketball organization or something, the goal is to give some life foundation to young people who might not have one). But if it is more of a religious community rather than a "social organization," then I think there has to be a different approach, since the purpose is not so much social as religious, along the lines of the teaching of St. Paul:

 

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber -- not even to eat with such a one.For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Drive out the wicked person from among you."

 

1Corinthians 5:9-13

 

Honestly, I think Christianity needs less "social organization" and more religious community. It is tough to speak with moral power today because the church has implicated itself in so much worldliness and social activity, it has lost the context of its prophetic voice. Today anyone speaking like St. Paul would be perceived as an anti-Semite and a homophobe, and they probably are...St. Paul had a completely different context in which he spoke, without all the baggage the church has passed on over the years. Christians are like fish out of water.

 

Sorry if this has nothing to do with the thread, your post just piqued my interest. :)

[Basilisa Marie]

 

Honestly, I think Christianity needs less "social organization" and more religious community. It is tough to speak with moral power today because the church has implicated itself in so much worldliness and social activity, it has lost the context of its prophetic voice. Today anyone speaking like St. Paul would be perceived as an anti-Semite and a homophobe, and they probably are...St. Paul had a completely different context in which he spoke, without all the baggage the church has passed on over the years. Christians are like fish out of water.

 

 

I really like this paragraph.  :)   It reminds me of the intentional communities we talked about in my theology of discipleship class.  I don't think it's strictly social activities that are the problem, but rather social activities that lack any deep, religious connection.  Any group can get together, sing songs, eat donuts, and run a food drive.  But when a Christian (Catholic!) group gets together to do that, there has to be an intentional, Christological dimension to it.  

 

Maybe that's one way in which the Scouts of St. George can succeed in ways that the Boy Scouts of America can't.  

[Era Might]

I really like this paragraph.   :)   It reminds me of the intentional communities we talked about in my theology of discipleship class.  I don't think it's strictly social activities that are the problem, but rather social activities that lack any deep, religious connection.  Any group can get together, sing songs, eat donuts, and run a food drive.  But when a Christian (Catholic!) group gets together to do that, there has to be an intentional, Christological dimension to it.  

 

Maybe that's one way in which the Scouts of St. George can succeed in ways that the Boy Scouts of America can't.  

 

Yeah, exactly. I was reading the Archdiocesan newspaper this morning and they advertised a fundraising event, with the Archbishop, that specified "with beer, wine, etc." IOW a big party. I'm not a moral nag out to make sure nobody has fun, but I'm uncomfortable with this kind of thing. Among Hispanic Protestant groups there is a sense of seriousness, separating yourself from the world, leading a new life...they don't drink, they dress differently, etc. It's easy to live a cultural spiritual life, but to really take discipleship seriously, as a "going out of the world," it's hard. And that kind of intentional living you're thinking of only happens in small groups, I think. I don't like the factory mill that parishes. I'd rather entrust religious formation to some holy person than to a CCD class.

[Apotheoun]

I'd like to know where the Church has said that it is not unjust discrimination to exclude homosexuals from being members of groups, seems like a blatant form of unjust discrimination to me.  I saw Apo make that claim, I have not seen it substantiated.  it has, of course, made it clear that they can be excluded from certain positions, but excluding them from membership is a completely different story, because what you're doing there is basically ostracizing them from social interaction with you, ie refusing to dine with them like Jesus would (thereby giving you the opportunity to express the opportunity for repentance to them as Our Lord did when he dined with prostitutes and tax collectors).  to exclude them from a position of leadership is an entirely different story and there are all sorts of reasons to exclude people who are in publicly scandalous lifestyles from various kinds of leadership positions.

 

and yes, if you allow them to join but do not permit them the possibility of any kind of leadership position, they themselves might have a problem with that and not want to join in the first place.  the point is that we should not socially ostracize them, it's wrong, it's unchristian, and I've never seen the Church endorse doing that.

 

even the Mormons reaffirmed their ties with the boyscouts after this.  I find it appalling that anyone thinks it's okay to socially ostracize boys from these kinds of social organizations on this basis.  the social organizations themselves should, of course, teach the Christian values they are designed around, and they have more of an opportunity to teach such Christian values when they do not unjustly discriminate.

The Church has said that people afflicted with homosexual desires can be justly discriminated against when it comes to adoption of children, entrance into the military, hiring as teachers or coaches, etc. 

 

As I said before, it is one thing if a person is struggling with homosexual desires, and quite another if he has embraced those disordered desires as some kind of defining personal characteristic. 

 

Socrates and I have both posted links to the CDF documents issued on this topic before, so I do not see why you are having such a hard time accepting the fact that the Church holds that there are just forms of discrimination that can be employed when dealing with individuals who have embraced the homosexual condition as normal (see for example Post#42 and Post #66 from the entitled: "Tolerance").

 

As I said above, it is one thing if a person is afflicted with same-sex attraction, but struggles against it, and quite another when a person embraces the deviant sexual tendencies that plague his thoughts turning them into a defining category of his very being. The former should be given assistance by the Church and by society in general in order to resist the evil desires that disturb his soul; while in the latter case discrimination may be necessary in order to avoid causing further harm to the morally weak and to those who may be at an impressionable age. 

 

So in the present case if there is a boy who self-identifies as "gay" it would be perfectly just to forbid him to join the Boy Scouts (or any other group) where there are impressionable young persons who could become confused by the open acceptance (or worse promotion) of a type of distorted sexual desires that the Church has described as "objectively disordered" as somehow benign or worse as normal.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Apotheoun