Peregrinator

I might respect a person who is an atheist but I don't respect atheism. In other words, I might respect someone who lacks belief but I would not respect his lack of belief.

They should just stop at "uphold our Scout values" since duty to the Queen, helping other people, and keeping the Scout Law surely are part of those values.

Rovers would be more appropriate for 18+

Thanks, I realize now that I misinterpreted your comment. I know of a traditional scouting association in Canada in which the Beaver (7-8), Cub (9-11), and Rover (17+) programs are co-ed, while the Scout/Guide (12-16) program is segregated. I'm not quite sure I agree with that approach (I think it would be better if the programs were segregated at all levels, for different reasons), but it might be the sort of compromise that would be acceptable to many families. Of course the hardcore activists won't settle for anything less than total integration/inclusion.

And some (many? most?) boys still handle it poorly and would be better served in a boys-only environment. And is "constant adult supervision" a feature of scouting?

A young man might act quite respectably around young ladies while still not feeling entirely comfortable around them. One of the aims of scouting is to bring out the individual character in each of the boys. I submit that that is hard enough to accomplish when all of the other members of the troop are boys. Adding girls to the troop will make it exponentially more difficult.

But what if the boys don't want that?

The BPSA is, I think, totally co-ed - well, leaving it a local option. Other traditional scouting associations (e.g. the Adventurers Association of Baden-Powell, or AABP, in Canada) are not.

Doesn't he have Duty to Others and Duty to Self in the wrong order?

If I could spare the time away from my family, I would volunteer at summer camp for free.

When I say that His Excellency seemed to act more for legal reasons than moral, it's because of what he wrote about the lack of protection for parishes and schools that sponsor troops. I am speculating here but I'm thinking he is concerned that parishes and schools will be taken to court for not permitting homosexual leaders in the troops they sponsor and that he doesn't put much stock in the BSA's ability to defend and idemnify them.

Reverend Deacon Lance, Thank you for the correction regarding the NCCS. I do think they confuse things by referring to Bp. Guglielmone as their "episcopal liaison" instead of "episcopal adviser." When I say that the NCCS doesn't have authority to state the Church's position, I mean that they speak for themselves and not for the Church. Only the Pope and the bishops in communion with him have the authority to speak for the Church. And clearly the position of the NCCS is not the only position a Catholic might have.

Excommunication? No, definitely not. And Bp. Kagan appears to have acted for legal reasons more so than moral. He's not said, for example, that Catholics sin by joining the BSA or by remaining a member.

What would be the basis of the excommunication? The BSA isn't a secret society.

This part doesn't seem particularly well-considered: And the rest of the response seems to be a variation on the old evil-bishop-not-following-the-Pope meme which liberals have discovered in the past two years.

If one identical twin identifies as homosexual, there is a 20% chance or less that the other twin identifies as such. That fact alone indicates that while genetics probably plays a role (people are probably genetically predisposed to be SSA), it is far from determinative, certainly not like "eye color or height." Evidence appears to be scant on the question of whether children of homosexuals are more likely to be homosexual themselves. So while it may be correct to say that, "Studies have shown that children raised in gay parent homes are no more likely to become gay adults than children raised in heterosexual parent homes," it may also be correct to add, "However, other studies have shown the opposite."

It never occurred to me that an inaccurate quote would have been anyone's fault but the Boston Globe's.

@@moosetracker, the issues involved are complex and there is a lot of history behind them -- plus you will find many contemporary Catholics don't agree with one another on this topic.

The Saint Joseph Foundation does good work, but it's true that Charles Wilson is not a canon lawyer (though there are canon lawyers who are on the foundation staff or who act as consultants). That said, I'm wondering if he was actually quoted accurately.

Wow, what a horrible approach to sexual ethics - 100% utilitarian. How different from Lord Baden-Powell's approach (quoted from Aids to Scoutmastership):

It can be helpful when one is enlisting in the military. Which is probably at least part of the reason that the BSA is viewed by some as a public accommodation rather than a private association.

Yes, in matters that are strictly civil the Church recognizes the jurisdiction of the civil courts. But that doesn't mean that civil law is superior to the Church's law.

Well I'm not a nominalist so I'll stick to my definition.

Certainly they exist, but their gods don't -- or if they do, they are not what one would ordinarily think of as gods.

There aren't any others.