HENDERSHOTT: How Scouts incite Catholic culture war

Jun 11, 2013 Full story: Washington Times 56

The decision by the Boy Scouts to include homosexual Scout members has opened a new front in the Catholic culture wars as increasing numbers of Catholic pastors are withdrawing their support for parish-based Boy Scout troops, while progressive Catholic organizations and newspapers are describing the pastors' decisions as "bigoted."

Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Dan

Omaha, NE

#42 Jun 17, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
You know,....?
Quest, in post #37 above, asked three simple questions of you.
You didn't answer any one of them.
Instead, you tried to equate his presentation of a personal simplicity of Being and a natural integrity with every imagination of bad behavior known to mankind.
Yes, such may be related, just as being a human can be related to destructive acts done by some humans to other humans, et cetera.
But, that does NOT answer the questions that he asked.
What you did was answer:
(Quest) If A + B = C, show why C is not the product of A + B.
(Dan answered) Because C is the same thing as D and D is often bad because it is not actually A + B.
Go back to his questions about A + B and show a reasoned answer, if you think you can. Let your answer come from a congruency of your own mind and heart.
And be aware: you have a trained set of beliefs that may not be a congruent source of parameters from which to draw an answer. But, you also have a fully capable mind and heart that YOU have RESERVED and kept apart from ALL of this training, knowing full well the exact point that you made in your answer above.
That is, that the human condition of "D" is often present.
Rev. Ken
Sorry I didn't reply to someone else as you'd have me do, Ken.

"How does a natural trait like homosexuality harm ANYONE? WHO is being harmed if God created some folks who can only be attracted to the same gender?"

The Church teaches that homosexuality is objectively disordered, thus those with the disorder are disadvantaged or "harmed" in this sense.

Their teachings on homosexual activity are known, unless you feel the need to see it spelled out.

I think that resolves quest's inquiry of me.

Seems like a pretty strange sin, doesn't it?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#43 Jun 17, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
You know,....?
Quest, in post #37 above, asked three simple questions of you.
You didn't answer any one of them.
Instead, you tried to equate his presentation of a personal simplicity of Being and a natural integrity with every imagination of bad behavior known to mankind.
Yes, such may be related, just as being a human can be related to destructive acts done by some humans to other humans, et cetera.
But, that does NOT answer the questions that he asked.
What you did was answer:
(Quest) If A + B = C, show why C is not the product of A + B.
(Dan answered) Because C is the same thing as D and D is often bad because it is not actually A + B.
Go back to his questions about A + B and show a reasoned answer, if you think you can. Let your answer come from a congruency of your own mind and heart.
And be aware: you have a trained set of beliefs that may not be a congruent source of parameters from which to draw an answer. But, you also have a fully capable mind and heart that YOU have RESERVED and kept apart from ALL of this training, knowing full well the exact point that you made in your answer above.
That is, that the human condition of "D" is often present.
Rev. Ken
...and you encapsulated my response with what you wrote earlier:

"And no one has to affirm ANY natural trait."

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#44 Jun 17, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry I didn't reply to someone else as you'd have me do, Ken.
"How does a natural trait like homosexuality harm ANYONE? WHO is being harmed if God created some folks who can only be attracted to the same gender?"
The Church teaches that homosexuality is objectively disordered, thus those with the disorder are disadvantaged or "harmed" in this sense.
Their teachings on homosexual activity are known, unless you feel the need to see it spelled out.
I think that resolves quest's inquiry of me.
Seems like a pretty strange sin, doesn't it?
Nope. Not good enough. You have answered from the set of trained responses that have caused the promulgation of the behavior "D."
Dan

Omaha, NE

#45 Jun 17, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Not good enough. You have answered from the set of trained responses that have caused the promulgation of the behavior "D."
Please provide antecedents for A-D.

......and the response does take care of quest's inquiry.

You can ask your own questions, right?

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#46 Jun 17, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide antecedents for A-D.
......and the response does take care of quest's inquiry.
You can ask your own questions, right?
I expect more and better of you, Dan.

You know exactly what I am talking about.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#47 Jun 17, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
I expect more and better of you, Dan.
You know exactly what I am talking about.
Actually, I don't.

Quest asked the same question twice, essentially, and coupled being homosexual with acting out on being homosexual, which the Church doesn't do.

So, no, I guess I'm not tracking you.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#48 Jun 17, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Well,.... you [Roman Church] certainly have in the past. I don't know what you [Dan] think may have changed yesterday.
Baptists are at least 46 million strong, in their various shades of the general "Born-again" hue. They are a powerful, influential force in Protestant theological belief. Their faith claims about five sources, including the Anglican Church which has always held ties to the Roman Church.
There are few, if any, who are any more fervent than the Baptists in their passion for discipleship to Christ.
If I were Jesus, standing at the Door of the "Gates of Heaven" and taking those by the hand who come asking to be brought in, I would be yanking them in left and right and only mildly chastizing the most zealous among them for thinking they themselves have understanding enough to keep anybody else out.
Rev. Ken
The Baptists, fervent as you describe, are in the process of moving very strongly against the new BSA membership policy respective to troop sponsorship, etc.

You can claim them if you wish, but the RCC isn't moving in their direction with this issue.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#51 Aug 22, 2013
desnuda wrote:
<quoted text>
True, and there will be a whole lot of harm when gays are entrenched in scouting. Harm to boys.
But no harm to BSA, which has passed legal liability on to the sponsoring organization, therefore Catholic pastors are withdrawing their support for parish-based Scout troops.

After the Catholic clerical sex scandals, I don't think the RCC wants a any secular sex scandals.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#52 Aug 22, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
But no harm to BSA, which has passed legal liability on to the sponsoring organization, therefore Catholic pastors are withdrawing their support for parish-based Scout troops.
After the Catholic clerical sex scandals, I don't think the RCC wants a any secular sex scandals.
Baloney!

The BSA is taking responsibility for its institutional bigotry and hypocrisy; not, as you say, passing the buck.

The Roman Catholics, on the other hand, present a picture of agreement with BSA, while continuing to regard homosexuality as a psychological "disorder," involving behaviors that it will not condone.

All of this while the Roman priesthood is known to be populated with a large percentage of homosexuals.

That, in itself, is not a bad thing. The Roman's denial of it and insistence on calling the orientation a "disorder" is the bad thing.

Rev. Ken

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#53 Aug 22, 2013
RevKen wrote:
All of this while the Roman priesthood is known to be populated with a large percentage of homosexuals.
That, in itself, is not a bad thing ...
... until they're alone with a male minor, which is why the RCC no longer accepts seminary candidates with strong homosexual tendencies.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#54 Aug 22, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
... until they're alone with a male minor, which is why the RCC no longer accepts seminary candidates with strong homosexual tendencies.
LOL!!!.... Yeeeeeah, right.

Heard the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale again, too.

Better hurry and get your bid in.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#55 Aug 22, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!.... Yeeeeeah, right ...
Yes, Kenny, the RCC has no longer accepted seminary candidates with strong homosexual tendencies since the results of the first John Jay study more than a decade ago.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#56 Aug 22, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Kenny, the RCC has no longer accepted seminary candidates with strong homosexual tendencies since the results of the first John Jay study more than a decade ago.
Ah, so ....

You did buy the bridge.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#57 Aug 23, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, so ....
You did buy the bridge.
You should buy a New York Times.

"Investigators appointed by the Vatican have been instructed to review each of the 229 Roman Catholic seminaries in the United States for 'evidence of homosexuality' and for faculty members who dissent from church teaching, according to a document prepared to guide the process.

"The Vatican document, given to The New York Times yesterday by a priest, surfaces as Catholics await a Vatican ruling on whether homosexuals should be barred from the priesthood.

"In a possible indication of the ruling's contents, the American archbishop who is supervising the seminary review said last week that 'anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity or has strong homosexual inclinations,' should not be admitted to a seminary ..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/15/national/15...

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#58 Aug 23, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
You should buy a New York Times.
"Investigators appointed by the Vatican have been instructed to review each of the 229 Roman Catholic seminaries in the United States for 'evidence of homosexuality' and for faculty members who dissent from church teaching, according to a document prepared to guide the process.
"The Vatican document, given to The New York Times yesterday by a priest, surfaces as Catholics await a Vatican ruling on whether homosexuals should be barred from the priesthood.
"In a possible indication of the ruling's contents, the American archbishop who is supervising the seminary review said last week that 'anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity or has strong homosexual inclinations,' should not be admitted to a seminary ..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/15/national/15...
LOL!!!.... I don't buy The New York Times, every bit because their editors and news-pickers are so full of Baloney!

Yeah, Right!

If this RCC reactive policy wasn't so backwardsly and dishonestly tragic,...

it would be cause for hilarity. But, then, that is precisely why the news leak was made.

So,(from your Y 2005 reference)(the new pope has taken a bit of a different line) the edict is essentially:....

"... back into the closet where you belong."
and "... We [will] see nothing. We hear nothing. We know NOTHING! and therefore, neither will YOU!"

Boy! You'd think the RCC would have had enough of the behind-closed-doors, self-endorsing, guilt-promulgating sexual corruption. But, Nooooooooo. "Everything was just copascetic until some stupidly honest idiots let the truth be known. Now, we've got to get everybody settled down again and forking over the cash again. Otherwise, we're toast. So, get on with the witch hunt and let everybody know that we are coming and to be on your best behavior when we get there."

It's just a shade different from the current Church of England edict, which is essentially, "... As a priest, you can be Queer. But, if you ever want to be installed as a bishop, you'd better be ready to lie to the Nth Degree about ever having acted like one, because if you do admit to it, you're automatically OUT!"

So, Anglican or Roman, the practical results are the same.

Those who we would fully qualify and who we would roundly congratulate and endorse as Our Moral and Spiritual Leaders are encouraged -** NO, REQUIRED **-, through our insistence on preserving traditional, institutionalized bigotry and hypocrisy, and the warping, wrongful interpretation of the Teachings of Christ Jesus, to become compromised, lying, closeted, furtive fags ...

... instead of honest, upright, priests and pastors living in Light and Love with open and above-board integrity and courage as true Christians; Children of God, who are Illumined in the Holy Spirit and both moral and responsible,...

showing the upright Way

Regardless of their God-given sexual orientation.

Rev. Ken

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#59 Aug 24, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!.... I don't buy The New York Times, every bit because their editors and news-pickers are so full of Baloney!...
How about the Washington Post?

Vatican to Survey Seminaries for Homosexuality

The Vatican has ordered an inspection of Roman Catholic seminaries in the United States to look for "evidence of homosexuality" and for faculty members who dissent from church teachings, according to a document containing guidelines for the year-long review ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

Or NBC News?

Less gay behavior in seminaries, Vatican says

NEW YORK A Vatican office that evaluated U.S. Roman Catholic seminaries in response to the clergy sex abuse scandal concluded that administrators have been effective in stopping "homosexual behavior" in the schools although the agency said the problem still exists.

The Congregation for Catholic Education sought a broad review of how the schools screen and educate prospective priests, but gave special attention to teachings on chastity and celibacy. The Vatican also directed evaluators to look for "evidence of homosexuality" in the schools ...

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28677174/ns/world_n...

Or USA today?

Expected Vatican ban on gay seminarians sparks questions

Word that a soon-to-be-released Vatican document will signal homosexuals are unwelcome in Roman Catholic seminaries even if they are celibate has devastated gay clergy and raised doubts among conservatives about whether an outright ban can be enforced.

A Vatican official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the document has not been released, said Thursday that the upcoming "instruction" from the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education will reaffirm the church's belief that homosexuals should not be ordained ...

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring discusse... 3 min Professor Jumper 6
Gay marriage set to make grand US... 6 min Professor Jumper 43
[VIDEO] Black Churches Are Becoming More Gay-Fr... 19 min Professor Jumper 53
Catholic League to sit out St. Patrick's Day pa... 25 min Rev Don Wildmoan 44
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 26 min The_Box 3,245
Man alleges sexual abuse as anti-gay 'conversion' 32 min The Rogue 16
US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, r... 40 min Pietro Armando 676
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 1 hr Cali Girl 2014 55,851
Biggest Gay Lies 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 1,991
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 288
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••