Catholic Boy Scouts Substitute: Scouts Of St. George

[Ice_nine]

To hell with the gay kids!

 

 

Today's gospel is my favorite tho.

[filius_angelorum]

Except, Apotheoun, you are equivocating with the term "gay". When a boy says "I am gay," he could be meaning any number of things, including the open acceptance of a particular lifestyle, the acknowledgement that he has same-sex attractions, etc. 

Secondarily, you are failing to acknowledge that IN THE RESOLUTION (which most people seem be ignoring), your point about the right to exercise a particular duty or office being justly restricted to those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies, is already dealt with. We aren't talking about a military unit or a counselor position, we aren't even talking about troop leadership, we are talking about membership in a youth organization. And in fact, as I am often pointing out, the continued ostracization of boys struggling with their sexual preferences from groups of other young men could result in an adverse effect that is directly contrary to the intended goal. Such children might never be able to achieve, even in the context of a continued struggle with their homosexual tendencies, the ability to cope with those feelings except through physical sexual contact, since they have been consistently denied intimacy with other men. 

 

Finally, you contradict yourself. At times, you are discussing the question of whether or not a person struggling with homosexual tendencies should be allowed to hold certain positions in society, which you reply to in the negative. Then you turn around and say "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."
Except, in the context of the situations which you have cited, it really DOESN'T matter whether a person is struggling or self-identifying. Either way they are excluded from those positions because the potential harm for their holding those positions outweighs the good. So, either it does not matter whether or not a person is struggling or it does. You can't have it both ways. 

 

I would also add that your whole concept of a person "embracing the deviant sexual tendencies...into a defining category of his very being" is a horrible depiction of man's "being". "I am a blonde" does not imply that "blondeness" pertains to a woman's being. "I am a teacher" does not mean that being a teacher pertains to a man's very being. They are both portraits of, and here the language used becomes incredibly obscure, characteristics which can be used to outwardly and inwardly identify a person....i.e., the man/woman's existence in the world. Having homosexual tendencies or attractions are not isolated, in themselves, to the sexual sphere; they are often accompanied by certain variations in personality, some of which can even be considered good attributes for any person to have. These have, in the common experience, been conflated with the concept of 'gayness' and, for an individual, might help to explain the whys and hows of his relational experiences with other people. In other words, when a person acknowledges, "I am gay" or "I am bisexual", we ought to understand that they BOTH have certain sexual feelings AND have, perhaps, certain other qualities which can often be very good. They are not limiting themselves to a certain category of "being". So stating, "I am gay" or "I am a lesbian" does not NECESSARILY have to imply that a person has tied all of their morality up into a particular normative or moral worldview, it can simply be a fairly accurate description of their struggles and personality. 

 

You need to further understand that if the "am" of that statement is a particularly weak one for adults, it is even more so for children and young adults, many of whom don't even have a firm concept of what sexuality means, at least in a responsible sense. I can think, in particular, of some students from my Church youth group who identified as all sorts of sexualities growing up, even though they continued attending services with a Southern Baptist congregation, some of whom are now married, parents, or are, unfortunately, in same-sex relationships. This can be even further complicated for many Boy Scouts who come, as a large enough number of them do, from United Methodist families, who are simply not going to give them the full depth of Catholic teaching on the subject (I would assume). When these boys say, "I am gay", they could mean any number of objective things, some of which might be morally objectionable and some which might be merely misunderstood by their troop leaders. The Boy Scouts have said, essentially, "How you define yourself and your sexuality is between you and your clergy or parents. We aren't either."

 

Now, some parents might simply be concerned about their Catholic children having contact with children whose parents have different moral standards then they. I dare say that has always been the challenge of groups like the Boy Scouts. But the BSA, I think, has proven its worth as a part of secular society, and I, for one, do not believe that a child benefits from exclusive contact with children who are exactly like him/her. Nor do I think that this statement, which doesn't even take an explicit stance on homosexual behavior, ought to justify parishes jettisoning the organization. Doing so would send a horribly mixed message about the Church's outreach to homosexual persons.

[Aloysius]

 

There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

 

all of that is referring to particular positions or vocations, things in which the sexual orientation would be entirely problematic for the carrying out of someone's duties.  if you notice I mentioned again and again that it is okay to preclude such people from positions of authority et cetera... none of this justifies general social ostracization.

 

ie, it's okay to preclude gay parents from adopting; it's an entirely different thing to suggest that parents shouldn't, say, adopt a gay child.  one refers to a position in which the sexual orientation actually affects duties (military service is an arguable example, personally I never felt the sexual orientation would really preclude people from adequately carrying out military duties but there are definitely arguments that can be made, and it's those arguments that are why military recruitment is included in the list).  none of this justifies general discrimination, which is what the CCC is referring to.

 

if this distinction doesn't adequately explain this from your perspective, then what exactly is the unjust discrimination every sign of which is to be avoided, that the CCC is referring to?

[KnightofChrist]

all of that is referring to particular positions or vocations, things in which the sexual orientation would be entirely problematic for the carrying out of someone's duties. if you notice I mentioned again and again that it is okay to preclude such people from positions of authority et cetera... none of this justifies general social ostracization.

ie, it's okay to preclude gay parents from adopting; it's an entirely different thing to suggest that parents shouldn't, say, adopt a gay child. one refers to a position in which the sexual orientation actually affects duties (military service is an arguable example, personally I never felt the sexual orientation would really preclude people from adequately carrying out military duties but there are definitely arguments that can be made, and it's those arguments that are why military recruitment is included in the list). none of this justifies general discrimination, which is what the CCC is referring to.

if this distinction doesn't adequately explain this from your perspective, then what exactly is the unjust discrimination every sign of which is to be avoided, that the CCC is referring to?

Scouts take an oath to be morally straight, and being morally straight is one of the duties of a Scout. How is it not entirely problematic to carry out that duty when the person taking the oath identifies and accepts a lifestyle that is not morally straight? It seems the difference between you and I is that you don't believe being a Scout member with an unnatural sexual orientation makes it problematic to carry out their duties as a Scout, I and others do believe it is problematic if not impossible. I also do not believe a person who repeatedly steals or lies, could keep the oath and duty to be morally straight. Just to be clear.

Early you stated you did not believe any lay organization should deny membership to open homosexuals. What about the Knights of Columbus, or other similar organizations, some of which actually have Scout groups that are also altar servers (prepping them for the Scouts for the Priesthood), or what about a lay group like Opus dei? So long as they did not allow them to be leaders could a open and/or active homosexual be a member of such an organization? Would that cause scandal and confusion among the faithful?

Adoption and membership into a private religious lay organization are entirely different. But even then should potential foster parents be forced to adopt a child that is openly gay? Or can they choose without being labeled unchristian another child? Edited June 17, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Basilisa Marie]

 

Scouts take an oath to be morally straight, and being morally straight is one of the duties of a Scout. How is it not entirely problematic to carry out that duty when the person taking the oath identifies and accepts a lifestyle that is not morally straight?

 

 

But that's the problem.  Those two things are different.  Identifying as something other than heterosexual doesn't automatically mean that they're going to make the decision to be sexually active or be in romantic relationships. 

 

Flip it on it's head.  Does a person's identity as a heterosexual automatically mean that they embrace a "heterosexual lifestyle?"  How do we explain decisions to abstain or to be celibate? Is every single heterosexual person actively in search of some kind of romantic or sexual relationship? No, of course not.  

 

If we are serious about not reducing people to their sexual orientation, then we can't automatically assume that every single person who identifies as gay is actively pursuing romantic and sexual relationships.  

[KnightofChrist]

But that's the problem.  Those two things are different.  Identifying as something other than heterosexual doesn't automatically mean that they're going to make the decision to be sexually active or be in romantic relationships. 
 
Flip it on it's head.  Does a person's identity as a heterosexual automatically mean that they embrace a "heterosexual lifestyle?"  How do we explain decisions to abstain or to be celibate? Is every single heterosexual person actively in search of some kind of romantic or sexual relationship? No, of course not.  
 
If we are serious about not reducing people to their sexual orientation, then we can't automatically assume that every single person who identifies as gay is actively pursuing romantic and sexual relationships.

I understand a person who identifies as homosexual will not necessarily be active in that lifestyle, which is why I used the and/or term. However, I would have to agree with Apo, self identifying as homosexual is a moral error/problem, and being active makes that moral error worse.

[Basilisa Marie]

I understand a person who identifies as homosexual will not necessarily be active in that lifestyle, which is why I used the and/or term. However, I would have to agree with Apo, self identifying as homosexual is a moral error/problem, and being active makes that moral error worse.

 

It's a moral error to admit or acknowledge that you're attracted to members of the same sex? 

[KnightofChrist]

It's a moral error to admit or acknowledge that you're attracted to members of the same sex?

It is an error to identify one's disordered passions with one's being.

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.

[Basilisa Marie]

But what does that even mean?  Are you saying that it's wrong to acknowledge that one has homosexual inclinations?  Because that's what people are doing when they say that they're gay. 

[filius_angelorum]

Adoption and membership into a private religious lay organization are entirely different. But even then should potential foster parents be forced to adopt a child that is openly gay? Or can they choose without being labeled unchristian another child?

 

It would depend on whether or not those parents could be Christian to that child; otherwise it would be uncharitable for them to adopt him/her. I would hope that I could adopt a child even if he identified himself as being gay, with the understanding that he would receive a fully Catholic formation (including our teachings that homosexual activity is wrong and that unjust discrimination towards persons with homosexual tendencies is also morally wrong).

 

The problem here is that many are putting the burden of proof on proving that a certain discrimination is "unjust". But the fact that the catechism states that "every sign of unjust discrimination must be avoided" puts the burden on the part of those trying to show that a particular act of discrimination is just. And I haven't seen a sufficient reason stated here. 

[Gabriela]

Well, looky here. My first "HOT" thread—on a topic I expected would be totally uncontentious...

[Aloysius]

the oath to be morally straight still includes Christian sexual ethics in the BSA code.  I was not a scout, but I do know many scouts who went all the way through and became eagle scouts, and the fact is that that code gets broken.  doesn't mean we should kick those scouts out, just means we should continue to try to form them according to Christian sexual ethics.  yes, still have them take those oaths to be morally straight, and still have the aspect of the boy scout code that does call for chastity... that doesn't mean ostracizing youth that self-identify as gay.

 

again, I am curious, what does the CCC's call that every sign of unjust discrimination is to be avoided?  is it irrelevant?  does it inform your position on anything regarding people who identify as homosexuals?  how exactly are homosexuals supposed to happen upon those disinterested friendships that can help them in the path towards chastity if we exclude them from every Catholic social group?  it would be far more comfortable for our position to do so, but I doubt very much that it's what Our Lord would call us to do. 

[Nihil Obstat]

I am curious about the implications of everyone's views in this thread. If a Catholic man was chaste, but identified as a person who struggled with same-sex attraction, would that be grounds to bar him from, let us say, the parish's men's retreat? Or the annual parish picnic? Or whatever.

I do not mean that as a loaded question. I am sincerely interested in everyone's responses.

[HisChildForever]

Well, looky here. My first "HOT" thread—on a topic I expected would be totally uncontentious...

 

Well, this [i]is[/i] Phatmass.

[Amppax]

I am curious about the implications of everyone's views in this thread. If a Catholic man was chaste, but identified as a person who struggled with same-sex attraction, would that be grounds to bar him from, let us say, the parish's men's retreat? Or the annual parish picnic? Or whatever.
I do not mean that as a loaded question. I am sincerely interested in everyone's responses.

Absolutely not. Period, the end.