Catholic Boy Scouts Substitute: Scouts Of St. George

[KnightofChrist]

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.

It means that though one may be tempted by a disordered passion, it does not mean they should define themselves by that temptation. Who we really are, our being, is greater than the sins that tempt us. We should not define ourselves by our temptations. There was a thread a couple of weeks ago and a debate within it discussed this issue of whether suffering from SSA makes one gay. I take the same position today as I did then, and I believe you took the opposite viewpoint. If you didn't then you seem likely to now, so we're probably not going to agree.
 

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.

It does matter if the oath is broken, it does matter if it is problematic or not possible for someone to carry out their duties that they promise to keep when they take the oath. First you argued that being an open homosexual wouldn't be problematic in carry out ones duty as a Scout, now you effectively argue that the oath and duty isn't all that important if it is followed fully or not. I disagree and would still like to know your answers to my previous questions you did not answer.
 

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.

It would be important to define unjust discrimination. Real examples of that would be verbal, mental or physical abuse, denying them food or water, refusing to sell/rent them a home. Denying them memberships to institutions that require a certain moral code which requires certain duties they cannot live up to or would be problematic for them to live up to would not be unjust.
 
 

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.

It could depend on what the retreat was for, if it was a retreat for discerning for the priesthood, there could be justification to bar some of those who identify as homosexual. If the retreat dealt with how to face sexual temptations, then it wouldn't make sense to bar them from attending. A picnic doesn't require a oath or duties to a moral code, so unless it's some extreme case where the person is not chase the person should be banned from the pinic.

What I wonder is how this discussion would change if it dealt people who suffer from a different unnatural or disordered passions, who openly identify with those passions. Would the compassion and understanding be given to that group like it is given to homosexuals? Would there be those who would defend those that suffer from different unnatural passions joining the Scouts? Would they be as quick dismiss or argue against the concerns of parents and families who object to allowing those who identify with a unnatural passion into the Scouts?

I believe depending upon the type of unnatural passion it will change the discussion. A big reason for that is due in fact to our relativistic society. The unnatural passion of homosexuality is receiving greater and greater acceptance, while others remain taboo for the time being. Those others are also growing in acceptance. As society accepts and force others to accept homosexuality it will become harder for Christians to preach and require a Christian moral code both in society and institutions in and of the Church.

[filius_angelorum]

First, I think you underestimate the ability of those practicing Catholics who identify as "gay" or "bi" to live an upright moral life.

Your question about how people would relate to others who have different unnatural passions is actually a poignant one, but unless you bring up what kind of "unnatural desires" you are talking about, I have no way of gauging my reaction to each situation. Homosexuality is, fundamentally, a desire for intimacy with those of one's own gender, and sexual expression of it is a perversion of friendship. The remedy, then, according to experience and the teaching of the Church, is safe and disinterested friendships, which membership in organizations like BSA or the parish men's group might offer. Here we have an instance of double effect. Is the bad effect of having those who identify as being gay outweighed by the potential benefit? I think so. The analogy isn't perfect, because homosexuality has not been specifically linked to a mental illness or disability, but alcoholism is a good example of where a person saying "I am an alcoholic" helps them to overcome and integrate their situation into their ordinary life. The situation of those who identify themselves as gay, bi, lesbian, transgender, etc. is even more complex, because such self-identity means different things to different people.

Which is why the document says, "Membership will not be denied on the basic of sexual orientation or preference ALONE."

As to the question, no. I would never, on the basis of sexual identity or preference, exclude any man from any parish activity, but would discourage him from contemplating the celibate priesthood.

And on the second question, I don't know enough to say....

[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.

[Ice_nine]

I guess this is kinda directed at KofC and Apo. I don't agree that one should define him/herself by sexual orientation but for goodness' sake we're talking about kids. It's not an easy task to identify yourself going through the shitstorm of adolescence.

 

All this talk about identity is fine and even encouraged but are you gonna tell a 12-14 year old kid who is going through a confusing time in his life "one must not define himself by vices contrary to God's nature concupiscence et al QED" I mean these are KIDS who will not know wtf y'all are talking about. So you're going to exclude them based on the facts that they're going through confusing emotional and sexual changes and they identify themselves the way they've been taught by the culture?

 

That's just uffed up guys.

[Nihil Obstat]

I love it so much when Ice9 gets all worked up, because she talks so crudely. :smile3:

[Socrates]

Wow - thread's still going.

 

Just a couple points:

 

1)  To reiterate: In a full page promoting his proposed group, Dr. Marshall made no mention of homosexuality.  (Nor did he specify what the policy would be regarding cases of chaste persons suffering from SSA.)  Yet we have pages of posts attacking this man for his alleged hatefulness and bigotry, or calling his group "creepy" and the like.

This is slanderous at worst, and idle speculation at best.

As Christians, we should avoid rash judgment, and assume the best about a person's intentions, unless we actually know otherwise and have a good reason for speaking out against them.

The ongoing talk against Dr. Marshall's group and speculation regarding him having sinister intentions are certainly not in accord with a spirit of Christian charity.

 

 

2)  I still see no pressing need for persons to publicly identify themselves with disordered sexual inclinations.  Apotheoun and KoC have already given plenty of good explanations for this position.  

When I was growing up, this nonsense wasn't an issue, because kids simply didn't run around self-identifying as "gay."  I also went to a Catholic college in which I did not know one single person who publicly identified as "gay" or "queer" or what have you, nor were there any "gay" groups or clubs on campus.  And I don't see that as a horrible, repressive thing.  While I am sure there were persons privately struggling with SSA, I don't think there was any need for me or the general public to know about it, nor would such persons wish to publicly identify as "gay" or "queer."

 

Among the traditional Catholics Dr. Marshall would likely mostly recruit from, kids don't self-identify with sexual disorders, so this whole thing would likely be a complete non-issue.

[Socrates]

I believe depending upon the type of unnatural passion it will change the discussion. A big reason for that is due in fact to our relativistic society. The unnatural passion of homosexuality is receiving greater and greater acceptance, while others remain taboo for the time being. Those others are also growing in acceptance. As society accepts and force others to accept homosexuality it will become harder for Christians to preach and require a Christian moral code both in society and institutions in and of the Church.

 

Sorry if I'm bringing up disgusting subject matter, but this is a very legitimate point.

 

Should Catholic persons who privately struggle with strong disordered sexual attractions toward children or animals (yes, such persons do exist) publicly identify themselves by these disorders?

 

Or for that matter, what about a married man who no longer finds his wife attractive, but is strongly tempted by attraction to other women?

 

(And before everyone rips into me for "equating homosexuality with pedophilia or bestiality," that is not my point, and I believe those things are in fact worse and more disordered than homosexuality.)

 

However, these are all gravely disordered sexual inclinations.  Serious question to those Catholics who say people should publicly identify themselves by their homosexual inclinations:  Should people suffering from all disordered sexual inclinations make them part of their public identity?  

If not, why?

[Basilisa Marie]

 

It means that though one may be tempted by a disordered passion, it does not mean they should define themselves by that temptation. Who we really are, our being, is greater than the sins that tempt us. We should not define ourselves by our temptations. There was a thread a couple of weeks ago and a debate within it discussed this issue of whether suffering from SSA makes one gay. I take the same position today as I did then, and I believe you took the opposite viewpoint. If you didn't then you seem likely to now, so we're probably not going to agree.
 

 

I think where we differ is that I think calling yourself "gay" doesn't necessarily mean that you're defining your whole being by your sexual desires.  But that's because I've met people, Catholics, who call themselves "gay" without defining their whole lives by it, living a chaste life.  I guess my point is that just because someone doesn't use the phrase "I suffer from SSA" to describe their orientation, it doesn't mean they are wrapped up in the gay movement.  There are plenty of people who define their whole person with "gay." But not everyone who is gay is like that.  

Anywho.  Yeah, we're probably not going to agree.  Cheers! :) 

[KnightofChrist]

First, I think you underestimate the ability of those practicing Catholics who identify as "gay" or "bi" to live an upright moral life.

I do not. I understand there are those who've given in to defining themselves according our mostly post-christian culture terms and definitions, but who are still chase and strive to upright moral lives. Yet this does not mean necessarily that they must be admitted into certain institutions. There would still be cases where they could be legitimately denied membership into certain institutions.
 

Your question about how people would relate to others who have different unnatural passions is actually a poignant one, but unless you bring up what kind of "unnatural desires" you are talking about, I have no way of gauging my reaction to each situation.

I gave no example other than simply unnatural disorders on purpose. Those who are willing to answer that question should be able to think of other unnatural disorders, ones which for the time being remain taboo, without my influence. Think about one, two or a hand full of unnatural disorders and ask yourself would you treat those who are tempted by those disorders differently, and would you want them to define their being in whole or in part by those disorders.

 

I guess this is kinda directed at KofC and Apo. I don't agree that one should define him/herself by sexual orientation but for goodness' sake we're talking about kids. It's not an easy task to identify yourself going through the poopystorm of adolescence.
 
All this talk about identity is fine and even encouraged but are you gonna tell a 12-14 year old kid who is going through a confusing time in his life "one must not define himself by vices contrary to God's nature concupiscence et al QED" I mean these are KIDS who will not know what tha' fa fa fa fa fonze? y'all are talking about. So you're going to exclude them based on the facts that they're going through confusing emotional and sexual changes and they identify themselves the way they've been taught by the culture?
 
That's just uffed up guys.

 
Well I don't agree with most of your rather colorful statements. But you do bring up some good points worth addressing.

They are kids, and some are confused. Why then not fight the post-christian culture when it tries to compel kids to embrace and define themselves by a unnatural disorder? Kids are intelligent, they can and have the ability to learn the reason why "one must not define himself by vices contrary to God's nature concupiscence et al QED". They only need someone brave enough to defy the culture to teach them.

Lastly, and this I fear will receive a lot of hate, because their hormones are raging, because they are confused, because they may self identify with an unnatural disorder, don't you think that parents and families may be legitimately concerned or opposed to their child sharing such close quarters with someone that suffers from a unnatural disorder? Surely most would see a similar concern if boys and girls with raging hormones are put into close quarters together. This is part of the reason there is a Boy Scouts and a Girl Scouts, to avoid morally problematic fraternizing. Allowing those who identify as homosexual to become Scouts makes such just segregation difficult and confusing.


 

I think where we differ is that I think calling yourself "gay" doesn't necessarily mean that you're defining your whole being by your sexual desires.  But that's because I've met people, Catholics, who call themselves "gay" without defining their whole lives by it, living a chaste life.  I guess my point is that just because someone doesn't use the phrase "I suffer from SSA" to describe their orientation, it doesn't mean they are wrapped up in the gay movement.  There are plenty of people who define their whole person with "gay." But not everyone who is gay is like that.  

Anywho.  Yeah, we're probably not going to agree.  Cheers! :)

Whole being or part, the divide between us is defining your being no matter how much by a unnatural disorder, and apply post-christian cultural terms to people. I will go with the Church Fathers, rather than the modern culture. I frankly hate how our culture labels and packages everyone into classes and groups like we are products in a store. Edited June 19, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[HisChildForever]

I think where we differ is that I think calling yourself "gay" doesn't necessarily mean that you're defining your whole being by your sexual desires.  But that's because I've met people, Catholics, who call themselves "gay" without defining their whole lives by it, living a chaste life.  I guess my point is that just because someone doesn't use the phrase "I suffer from SSA" to describe their orientation, it doesn't mean they are wrapped up in the gay movement.  There are plenty of people who define their whole person with "gay." But not everyone who is gay is like that.  

Anywho.  Yeah, we're probably not going to agree.  Cheers! :)

 

Right. Catholics who have a healthy understanding of sexuality (especially [i]their[/i] sexuality) don't allow their lives to be dominated by their sexual desires. A person ruled by his sexual passions, be he gay or not, is likely to welcome or get wrapped up in the "night scene" (drinking, hooking up), casual sex, pornography, etc., and will define his self-worth by how many people he can get in bed. A person who chooses to live chastely, however, will recognize beauty but not transform it into lust, again be he gay or not. He's not choosing to define himself by his sexuality. And I don't know, maybe I just do a really good job being chaste, but I don't find my life particularly impacted by my sexuality. Obviously that's not the case for everyone, but if you practice chastity, and you don't define yourself by your sexuality, your mind will be focused on other things.