A Rather Interesting Comment

[tjhammer]

I am, and will forever be, amazed, that the news regarding the church, and its public call for exclusion of gays, has not garnered the condemnation from those who condemned the BSA. In the instance of the church, the call for that exclusion was based on abuse of childrenI'm not sure that's true... frankly, the Catholic Church has not said any such thing... only a few of the leaders of that clergy have stated their opinions out loud that gays should be excluded. And there has been a response from society that has cautioned it is inappropriate to blame gays for the current crisis in the Church (no matter how much they want to blame someone or something). I think we can all agree that the Catholic Church has bumbled their response nearly completely on this tragedy. I doubt very seriously if the Church will, in the end, ban gays from the clergy. This is the same group that has yet to figure out how to apologize to the victims and who seem much more consumed with the preservation of their power and jobs than the well being of their flock. This is the same group that has struggled to come up with a policy in response that ranges from "on strike and your out" to the current "well, just don't make a habit of it". In other words, that group has said and done a lot of silly things in response to the crisis surrounding them.

 

The fact that gays are being blamed by a small percentage of the Church leadership shouldn't surprise anyone as we watch that group continue to grope for an excuse for a scenario that would never be possible in the BSA. Haven't we all, at some level, wondered why the Church couldn't simply have adopted Youth Protection (and Priest Protection against false allegation) policies?

 

Rooster, I don't believe the Catholic Church position on gays is that they are unrepentant sinners. Specifically, the American Catholic Church has long allowed gay priests... they have just expected them to remain celibate (as is their expectation of all priests). Gay is not an act, it is a state of being, and the Church has released a great deal of doctrine coming to grips with this fact in recent years.Yet, I'm certain that this is NOT the driving force behind their exclusion policy. Is there an exclusion policy already? I follow the news pretty carefully, and Ive only heard about a few of the clergy that have floated this idea as a solution and place to lay blame. I know that Rome would like this to be the case, but so far (and I doubt ever) the ruling Catholic body in the US has not adopted a ban on homosexuals from the clergy.homosexuality is a sin. That being the case, why would the Catholic Church allow someone who professes to be an unrepentant homosexual, to enter the clergy?Welll, of course I dont believe homosexuality is a sin, but I do see where that is the belief of a majority of Catholics. However, so is drunkenness (in their minds), yet Ive always heard that you can often count on a Catholic Priest to be a great drinking buddy.Even if the said homosexual were repentant, the Catholic Church would still need to assess that person's fitness to serve.Again, Im not sure that they expect the gay to be repentant to be a priest, just celibate. (I dont much agree with the celibacy argument for gays or straights in the Priesthood, but hey, its not my Church).Good judgment demands that they evaluate the nature of the sin and the potential risks associated with it.OK, lets accept for a moment (for the sake of argument) that gays are in fact sinners just by the very nature of being gay. You make a very good point here, Rooster, one that I believe is relevant to the BSA. Your argument on why gays should not be allowed to be priests seems mostly focused on the risks associated with it. The BSA does not claim this as a valid reason for banning gay leaders (because to do so would be to admit that YP doesnt work, which it does). I suspect that many of you who support banning gays from Scouting (and teaching that lesson to our Scouts) do so (if not forthrightly) because of the risks associated with it that you perceive. If those risks are not real (and they arent), then the only other reason you can claim is the gays are bad role models approach, which again boils down to your opinion versus mine, or your Churchs teachings versus mine.Maybe the reason you don't feel you get the respect you deserve is because you have a very condescending attitude toward other members of the board, almost DD-esque.Slontwovy... Sorry, it was late when I posted, and my comment was intended to be a bit lighthearted. I really wasn't pulling a Rodney Dangerfield routine. Frankly, I don't worry too much about whether I "get respect" (with the exception of the disrespect that our departed DedDad used to spew). I'm really very comfortable that I have acted in an honorable way in my debates on this board (with the exception of a rather dark period where I allowed myself to get drawn into a personal contest with that now banished member). I have not intended to be condescending to anyone. I suspect that you may feel as if I have "talked down to you" because we strongly disagree on this issue; I can relate to those feelings, as they are quite similar to how I feel when lectured by my opponents who argue that Im just plain wrong because I dont agree with them and their Church."it's a shame many of those posts were spent repeating yourself to those that just keep missing the point!"Again, this was not intended to be an insult... it was a lighthearted remark to NJCS. However, I apologize if that was seen as a personal attack by anyone... maybe I should retire the "new sarcastic, lighthearted tjhammer" in favor of the return of the "passionate, articulate tjhammer" .

 

[evmori]

TJ,

OK what are you basing your belief that homosexuality isn't a sin on? If you read the Bible, there are numerous references to homosexuality being unfit behavior in God's eyes. Ergo, a sin.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[ScoutParent]

It amazes me that in the United States of America where we are all supposed to have certain freedoms, we constantly have to explain why we choose to exercise ours and have an organization comprised of people who believe in God and believe that homosexual behavior is improper.

[Rooster7]

I think we can all agree that the Catholic Church has bumbled their response nearly completely on this tragedy.

 

Even the most die-hard Catholic would have to nod his head to that statement. This is a rare moment of agreement, but one that I can appreciate.

 

I doubt very seriously if the Church will, in the end, ban gays from the clergy.

 

Perhaps you are referring to same small minority of Catholics that have broken away from the Church. I don't know all of the various segments that have branched off from the original Church. Nevertheless, it's safe for me to say, any Catholic Church that wants to maintain a good relationship with Rome (i.e., the Pope and the ruling body of the Church) already bans unrepentant homosexuals from the priesthood. And in fact, they (emphasis on unrepentant) are not welcomed as Church members.

 

While I have not attended a Catholic Church in quite sometime, I feel have a pretty good handle on their doctrine. If I'm wrong, I urge the members of this board who are dedicated Catholics to speak up and educate me. As a former Catholic, I know of many folks who attended church, but did not know what the Church believed in. I hope that those who chose to respond do not fall into this group ("Sundays only" believers of the faith). This is not a problem limited to the Catholic Church. Of course, Protestant churches see this too, as do other faiths. My point is, please don't respond unless you truly know the church's position.

 

Well, of course I don't believe homosexuality is a sin, but I do see where that is the belief of a majority of Catholics. However, so is drunkenness (in their minds), yet I've always heard that you can often count on a Catholic Priest to be a great drinking buddy.

 

For a guy that trumpets liberal causes, you sure dropped the ball on that last comment. Wasn't it just a little bit less than politically correct? In fact, some might say it was outright bigoted. Are negative stereotypes offensive all the time, or only when it offends a group that you consider an ally? I know you're not fond of organized religion, but let's keep the debate factual.

 

[tjhammer]

you sure dropped the ball on that last comment. Wasn't it just a little bit less than politically correct? In fact, some might say it was outright bigoted.More sarcasm from tjhammer. It must be the springtime weather!OK what are you basing your belief that homosexuality isn't a sin on? If you read the Bible, there are numerous references to homosexuality being unfit behavior in God's eyes. Ergo, a sin.I've answered this question a few times before, but here goes again, in summary:Those are references to scripture harvested from the Old Testatment, and I have already said as a Christian I believe the Old Testament to be mostly irrelelavant, the precursor to Christianity.I do not believe the Bible is the infallible word of God, but rather man's interpretation of God's will, edited, translated and evolved by man time and again.I do not belong to any Church that teaches homosexuality is a sin, maybe you do.Scouting, by the way, does not require (or even prefer) that I believe contrary to the above statements.That's the quick answer. And ScoutParent, welcome to the debate. I encourage you to read the previous threads on this topic to get a better understanding of the positions. In general though, no one wants to dictate who you have to associate with... most of us advocate local decision to leave this control up to the parents and Chartering Partner, which would not force you to associate with anyone.

[Bob White]

Well the rumor mill grinds with incredible enthusiasm.

"I am, and will forever be, amazed, that the news regarding the church, and its public call for exclusion of gays,"

 

jmcquillan in a previous post included a quote from a priest.

 

''I don't expect much from this meeting,'' said the Rev. Donald B. Cozzens, a former seminary rector and author of ''The Changing Face of the Priesthood. ''My hunch is that they will be told to face `the moral laxity in the priesthood and in our seminaries' and to exclude gays from admission,''

 

This one priest shared a personal guess, a hunch. Now jmcquillan has elevated this one priest, not a Bishop, not a Cardinal, certainly not the Pope but, someone who was not at the papal conference, and who made the comment before the conference even took place to be a spokesperson for the entire Catholic Church.

 

Jmcquillan writes

"I am, and will forever be, amazed, that the news regarding the church, and its public call for exclusion of gays,"

 

What news? When did the Church make such a statement?

 

This was an irresponsible fabrication. As a Catholic I resent it, as a moral individual I find it repugnant. I can only imagine jmcquillanss outrage if the scout law required truthful as one of its moral values.

 

What does this topic have to with delivering a scouting program to our community?

How does useless debate over gays in scouting or any church get you to know and use the scouting methods?

 

You dont hear the officers of scouting criticizing United Way, or gays, or Catholics, or Mormons or any other sector of our society. But we have self-proclaimed scouters who not only publicly attack groups they dont like, they dont even like the group they volunteered to join.

 

Loyal, Friendly, Courteous, Kind. Shame on anyone for claiming to have the moral authority to judge these characteristics in scouts, when they lack those same characteristics in themselves.

 

 

 

 

[jmcquillan]

Bob White, and others whom I have utterly offended,

 

I offer my most sincere apologies for unwittingly overstepping the bounds of good discussion with my errant observations and misrepresentations. It was not my intention to denigrate the Catholic church, nor its parishioners, only to look at and compare the situations that both organizations find themselves in. Obviously , Ive done nothing of the kind, and only offended. And for that, I am truly sorry. I wont slink away from this one, as Ive put my foot right in it, embarrassingly, awkwardly, and completely. Again, my humble apologies.

 

The church finds itself in a horrible situation, made worse by the notion in the media, that there may be gay priests to blame for some of what has transpired. As homosexuality is a sin, and the Final Communique from Rome attended to the need to better deal with the admission requirements to the priesthood, there are those who add the two, and point to the stated exclusion of gays as the remedy for the future. That being a growing concern in the church in my region, the similarities that exist, or may come to exist, between the church and the BSA, with both having a desire and need to stand on similar ground, lead some to wonder where the voice is among those who called for full admission of gay men to the ranks of BSA adult leadership. Theirs is somewhat silent today, but perhaps they wait for the proof that I did not. Still, I do stand amazed that the mere notion has not picked up the ears and voices of those who we heard, and still hear, on the other side from us in our own pickle. Perhaps, aside from their views which differ from ours, they should be given more credit than I for keeping their mouths shut before thinking.

 

To all, my utterances are my own, and most deserving of my apologies, which I offer again.

 

My wonder, though, still waits unsatisfied. This time, I shall wait a little longer for an answer.

 

jmc

 

[Rooster7]

jmcquillan,

 

For the record, I was never offended by your queston.

 

I am a bit perplexed by the notion (not just your's, but TJ's as well) that the Catholic Church openly accepts gay (although celibate) priests. Perhaps there is more openess to this idea in the United States than I ever heard. TJ stressed that "...the American Catholic Church has long allowed gay priests." I am truly amazed if this is true. When I was practicing Catholic, I saw no evidence that the Church would ever accept that change. Can someone tell me, what Catholic churches do allow homosexuals to be priests, and how many of the 40 million American Catholics do they represent? I'm convinced that it must be a small minority, but I could be wrong.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[eisely]

It has always been my understanding that the earlier post on the catholic church's official position on homosexuality is correct. That is, believing oneself to be a homosexual or having what is commonly called a homosexual orientation, is not by itself a sin. Engaging in homosexual acts, whether one is priest, sister, brother or lay, would be regarded to be a sin.

 

Homosexuality in the clergy is a real problem for the catholic church right now. The overwhelming majority of youth molested by priests were boys, not girls. One of the ironies is that gay activists who have been hostile to the church are now defending the ordination of homosexual priests. Historically the homosexual community has been very hostile to the catholic church. Several years ago, one gay group of activists disrupted a mass at St. Patrick's cathedral in New York and went so far as to desecrate the communion hosts in front of the entire assembly. Great way to make friends and influence people.

[slontwovvy]

I wish to make a slight clarification on Rooster7's comment on homosexuality in the Catholic Church.

 

"Per the teachings of the bible and the Catholic Church, homosexuality is a sin."

 

Here are a few quotes from the Catholic catechism regarding the subject:

 

2358. "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is 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. "

 

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. "

 

2396. "Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices. "

 

The Catholic Church and I do not have any problem with homosexuals. It is when they act on their condition by activism, activities, speaking out, etc. that they lose their chastity (responsibility). Thus I have no problem with homosexuals being gay, I merely have a problem when they do anything with their choice.

 

2357.

"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. "

[tjhammer]

Slontwovvy... wow, thank you very much for that research and posting that. It's very informative as to the Catholic Church's opinion (and frankly even more "liberal" of an approach than I had thought the Church has articulated).

 

Basically, as I read the catechism of the Catholic Church the position is this:They accept that homosexuality is "not a choice", and "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."Homosexuals (who as NJCubScouter has said so eloquently before, God chose to make as about 5% of mankind) should live chased lives (no sexual intimacy with others) in order to avoid "sin" (like masturbation).It's almost as if teh Church is saying that homosexuality is a innate defect, like mental illness.

 

I find this to be very encouraging, actually. I believe it is an indefensible position to maintain over the long-term, of course. Homosexuals are not mental defects, that's thinking that was abandon by the physch community decades ago. It's also intellectually (and religiously) dishonest to believe God made a being with the expectation that they would either "be a sinner" or be sentenced to a life absent of sexual intimacy. But it is at least refreshing to realize that official doctrine of that Church has come to grips with the innate nature of homosexuality... it's a step in the right direction to reckoning man's bigotry with God's will.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[jmcquillan]

Rooster7,

 

I do not believe the church, in modern history, has made it policy of openly accepting gay men to the priesthood. If I left that impression, I was in error. Rather, my guess is that the church may have unwittingly allowed for some gay men, still in the closet and not in the open, to succeed into the priesthood. I'm not so sure there might have been a way to prevent that. The question now is, if, and this is only if, the current tragedy that faces the church is due, in part, to some members of the priesthood being gay, what does the church do about it? What course is to be followed? If, by church teaching, homosexuality is a sin, then would it not follow that exclusion of those who practice the gay lifestyle from the priesthood is likely? And, if that becomes the course taken, what will be the reaction of those who plowed a course of wrath against the BSA? Will they react in similar fashion?

[evmori]

Folks,

From what I understand, most of these priests have been accused of being pedophiles. A pedophile is not necessarly a homosexual and visa versa. And I don't condone either and feel neither should be allowed to have any involvement with kids.

 

The issue with Catholic priests being allowed to marry virtually has nothing to do with the crimes they have been accused of. A married man can very well be a pedophile.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[OldGreyEagle]

AMEN ED,

 

The Roman Catholic Church has a problem with Pedophile Predatory Priests, not with gay priests. Whether a priest is homosexual or heterosexual, it makes no difference since he is NOT expected to have a sex-life.

 

 

[Quixote]

OGE & Ed,

 

I understand and agree that the problem is with pedophiles in the preisthood, but isn't it also as obvious that the vast majority (at least of the reported cases) are instances involving boys as opposed to boys and girls?

 

I could be wrong, but just based on what i've read in the papers about the various cases across the country, while the articles may say young people, they more often than not indicated that those young people in most instances were boys, not girls.

 

Is my perception incorrect?

 

Quixote