WHEREAS, it is the mission of the Boy Scouts of America to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Scout Law:
Scout Oath | Scout Law | ||
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country And to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, Mentally awake, and morally straight. (Does not mean straight in sexual orientation.) |
A Scout is:
Trustworthy Loyal Helpful Friendly Courteous Kind | Obedient Cheerful Thrifty Brave Clean Reverent | |
AND WHEREAS, duty to God, duty to country, duty to others, and duty to oneself are each a core value and immutable tenet of the Boy Scouts of America; and
WHEREAS, the Scout Oath begins with duty to God and the Scout Law ends with a Scout's obligation to be reverent, and that will always remain a core value of the Boy Scouts of America, and the values set forth in the Scout Oath and Law are fundamental to the BSA and central to teaching young people to make better choices over their lifetimes; and
WHEREAS, the vision of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare every eligible youth in America to become a responsible, participating citizen and leader who is guided by the Scout Oath and Scout Law; and
WHEREAS, for more than 103 years, programs of the Boy Scouts of America have been delivered to youth members through cooperation with chartered organizations that select adult leaders who meet the organization's standards as well as the leadership standards of the Boy Scouts of America; and
WHEREAS, numerous independent experts have recognized that the programs protecting Scouts today, which include effective screening, education and training, and clear policies to protect youth and provide for their privacy, are among the best in the youth-serving community; and
WHEREAS, the current adult leadership standard of the Boy Scouts of America states:
The applicant must possess the moral, educational, and emotional qualities that the Boy Scouts of America deems necessary to afford positive leadership to youth. The applicant must also be the correct age, subscribe to the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and abide by the Scout Oath and the Scout Law.While the BSA does not proactively inquire about sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.
AND WHEREAS, Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting; and (This means that chastity is an essential characteristic of a good scout.)
WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America does not have an agenda on the matter of sexual orientation, and resolving this complex issue is not the role of the organization, nor may any member use Scouting to promote or advance any social or political position or agenda; and (Basically, the Scouts are saying, "Look, we aren't scientists or psychologists or clergy. How children work out their identity in the context of their faith has to do with people a lot more important than us. Scouts want out of this mess, but we want to do so in a moral way.")
WHEREAS, youth are still developing, learning about themselves and who they are, developing their sense of right and wrong, and understanding their duty to God to live a moral life; and (The language that we use to describe ourselves, particularly while we are young, is something fluid and incremental, and depends on family situations. For example, while a child from a practicing Catholic family might not describe themselves as "gay" but as "struggling with chastity issues" or "struggling to find his vocation", a child from a Methodist family might come right out and identify himself with the cultural term, "gay" or "bi" or whatnot. As an organization, the Scouts are more concerned with helping students to do what is ACTUALLY morally upright and to help them become good people. They aren't really concerned about the labels that students from different backgrounds and faiths use to describe themselves. After all, they're kids, and that will probably change later anyway.)
WHEREAS, America needs Scouting, and the organization's policies must be based on what is in the best interest of its young people, and the organization will work to stay focused on that which unites us, and
WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America will maintain the current membership policy for all adult leaders of the Boy Scouts of America, and (The Boy Scouts basically are saying that they agree with the Catholic position that having openly and avowedly gay men in charge of groups of pubescent and post-pubescent boys is probably a bad idea. To use an example, I teach at a Catholic school, but as a man, I am generally not asked to take charge of the Junior High girls on a permanent basis. If we were running a boarding school, it wouldn't be ideal to have a fairly young man in charge of the junior high girls' dormitory, whatever our estimation of his moral character might be. It just makes sense.)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
The following membership standard for youth members of the Boy Scouts of America is hereby adopted and approved, effective Jan. 1, 2014:
Youth membership in the Boy Scouts of America is open to all youth who meet the specific membership requirements to join the Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, Sea Scout, and Venturing programs. Membership in any program of the Boy Scouts of America requires the youth member to (a) subscribe to and abide by the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law, (b) subscribe to and abide by the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and (c) demonstrate behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others and is consistent at all times with the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone. (The key word here is "alone". Look, if I had a son who sexually oriented to men, or to both genders, would I want him, from adolescence, to be excluded from activities that are a normal part of growing up, such as scouting, or youth sports, or swim team, just because he might get a crush on the other boys? No. It's not cancer. It won't kill him. It won't even cause him to sin unless he wants it to. That's my personal take. Here's what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about it....)
CCC 2358: The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them 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.
CCC 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.
Let's look at the Boy Scouts' decision in light of the two quotes above. However, first, a slight prefatory note. The Catechism states that the "inclination" is "objectively disordered". However, I think it is important to point out that the Catechism does not claim to be a psychology textbook. It is not saying that homosexual persons have any sort of genetic, psychological, or medical 'syndrome' or that they are somehow 'defective' by scientific standards. The Catechism looks at it from a moral perspective. The desire to have sex with people of the same gender is a desire which is not ordered to a moral end. End of story, from the Catholic point of view. Likewise, persistent, deep-seated desires to have sex with women other than one's wife, or to use pornography, or to engage in masturbation, are all objectively disordered. They also happen to people who are perfectly healthy, capable human beings. Being homosexual is not the same as being a leper or having PTSD. But, then again, even if homosexuality were some sort of disease like leprosy (as I do NOT believe it is), how did Jesus teach lepers? St. Damien of Molokai, anyone?
Moving on to some of the key ways that these two texts encounter the BSA resolution, I would like to note a clause that is often left out in these discussions. Right after the "objectively disordered" bombshell, which usually leaves everyone--conservatives and progressives alike--foaming at the mouth, there is a little sentence that is absolutely essential to a right understanding of Catholic doctrine. "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." Not just the discrimination itself, folks, but even the "sign" of it, which would include actions or words that merely hint at unjust discrimination. For example, even if the exclusion of gay boys from locker rooms might be a 'just discrimination' (I'm not sure), the effects of such a decision might be to (a) expose the boy to additional bullying at school, (b) prevent the boy from participating in school sports equally--which would surely be unjust, (c) lead him to develop an unhealthy separation from good male influences which could help him to adjust to his situation, (d) represent an attitude that homosexuals are somehow 'diseased' or 'unclean', which would be fundamentally un-Christian. I would argue that excluding homosexual boys from activities such as Boy Scouts could have largely the same effects as these, and is therefore unjustified and unjust.
Second, we note that the part of the resolution which deals with chastity could very well have been lifted straight out of CCC 2359. Boy Scouts ought to be chaste. Period. If they aren't, then they will be kicked out anyway, and as anyone who has actually worked with youth can tell you, there is no way based on a child's declaration of sexual orientation or preference, to tell exactly what their sexual behavior will be in a given situation. I was in a Southern Baptist youth group growing up with two homosexuals and two bisexuals. Youth are unpredictable on chastity issues.
Finally, we might note the ways in which a Boy Scout troop sponsored by the Catholic Church, with its carefully nuanced perspective on homosexuality, might well be exactly what a young boy needs who is struggling with homosexual feelings. Within such a loving group of boys his own age, he might well find the acceptance and support he needs to make good decisions about chastity and prayer, and therefore approach the "Christian perfection" talked about in the Catechism. I am not saying that if you just take the boy camping and fishing enough you will get him to become more "manly" and less "effeminate", nor am I saying that a Catholic Boy Scout group could help a gay child "pray the gay away". Rather, I am suggesting that being around boys who loved him, not as a potential sexual partner or someone 'different', but as a fellow Boy Scout and friend might just help him to find healthy relationships that could maintain the standards of Catholic chastity. That's to say nothing about what it might teach the straight boys in the troop about the need for sensitivity to the struggles of others....
And so, with all that being said, recognizing that my view will probably make neither conservatives nor progressives very happy, I say that, if I were to have a son with deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or just a son who wasn't particularly picky, I would be very happy for him to join the Boy Scouts, sell popcorn, and go camping....as long as I didn't have to go.
Thank you! Thank you for articulating a very faithful yet practical approach to this issue. I'm publishing a post later today on 'Christians' response to homosexuality' and the great damage it's done by ignoring a position like yours. This is helpful.
ReplyDeletePerusing your blog this morning, I read your piece The Essence of Traditionalism, and was struck by this: "This is my self-justification for writing yet another traditionalist blog, in hopes that I may find an active readership which will share at least some of my opinions, or want to debate them."
ReplyDeleteI came to your blog after reading your recent comments on the Rorate post "Trinity Sunday's papal mass", specifically these: We fight by suffering. We speak volumes with our silence. We will win the day, and the hearts of all people of good will only if it can be said that we never reviled others, but were always reviled; never struck blows, but were always persecuted; always spoke the truth, but never condemned those over whom we had no authority. And no, convoluted defenses for questionable behavior do not amount to silence or submission, because they will never be accepted by those for whom the defenses are being offered.
Having read daily the Rorate site for a number of years, alas, often groaning, I remain deeply impressed by the intelligence, spiritual depth, and admirable modesty of these your comments. I want you to know that, and wish to thank you for that. I've of late unfortunately been aware of a heightened vile tone of a number of comments on Rorate, it seems to me particularly since the heightened involvement of Adfero, presumably due to the illness of New Catholic's mother. I recalled this morning Teresa of Jesus' comment that a soul won through mercy, that is, through our example of mercy, was prized by the Lord above all others. (I apologise for the paraphrase, I believe it comes from her Book of Foundations, one of the great books of my lifetime.)
I will continue to look at your interesting blog, and regret that you don't post there more often. However, I sincerely hope you continue to post comments at Rorate, where, alas, I often encounter a remarkably nescient and indeed dispiriting panorama of mere opinion, seemingly uninformed by Love.
Mike
Thanks for that Mike! I try to keep up with the blog on a weekly basis but am in the middle of balancing several responsibilities. I miss a few now and then, and this blog has only been recently resurrected from an ambitious, but ill-planned, beginning. Comments like yours give me the confidence I need to continue.
ReplyDelete"End of story, from the Catholic point of view."
ReplyDeleteNo. The Catholic perspective is not limited to theology, but is informed by all of reality. A Catholic is obliged to look at all that pertains to a given moral situation. To shelve Catholic teachings because it is not scientific, or departmentalize and then use that as an excuse to ignore what the Church has always taught constitutes gravely flawed moral thinking.
"The desire to have sex with people of the same gender is a desire which is not ordered to a moral end."
It most certainly is! How in the world do come to that conclusion? I don't think you understand even the rudiments of moral theology. All human desires are morally ordered.
"Likewise, persistent, deep-seated desires to have sex with women other than one's wife, or to use pornography, or to engage in masturbation, are all objectively disordered. They also happen to people who are perfectly healthy, capable human beings."
The homosexual act is something very different. This is equivocating in that the homosexual act is gravely disordered to a greater degree than these other disorders you mention.
"Being homosexual is not the same as being a leper or having PTSD. But, then again, even if homosexuality were some sort of disease like leprosy (as I do NOT believe it is), how did Jesus teach lepers? St. Damien of Molokai, anyone?"
There are clinical psychologists who still hold that, and base successful treatments on, same sex attraction disorder is a psychological illness. They have been discounted based solely on politics and without the weight of scientific proof.
Your approach misses the point of the criticism, which is, namely, that the BSA decision condones the disorder and the immoral behavior on the part of the boy when it states: "No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone." By doing so the BSA says that homosexual behavior is behavior "that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others".
If you agree that homosexual behavior exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others, then I seriously question your understanding of Catholic moral principles.
Thank you for your comments. Allow me to clarify a few points. First, I did not say that we should "shelve" Catholic teachings because they are not scientific, I said that we should not treat Catholic teachings as if they were scientific. I said the nature of a desire being "objectively disordered" was a moral one, not a scientific one. Nor did I enter into the question of whether one desire was more disordered than another. That is another discussion for probably another century, and it certainly has very little to do with the pastoral response to homosexuality in the modern culture.
ReplyDeleteNow, perhaps I am simply less capable in reading comprehension than yourself, but I fail to see anything in the document that justifies your conclusion. The resolution states that MEMBERSHIP requires Scouts to maintain the "highest level of good conduct and respect for others", and that sexual conduct (hence, homosexual behavior) is incompatible with this. It also says that sexual preference or orientation, neither of which imply behavior, is not the basis for discrimination, which is also what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, a fact which you seem to ignore.
Entering into the science of the question is interesting, but given the fact that many psychologists, including Catholic ones, have noted that sexual reorientation therapy and various other methods of treatment tend to have more side effects than benefits, and that for many people they are ineffective, the Catholic Church simply has not taken a position on the question of treatment. It probably never will. I would never put my child through it unless he wanted to, and I would never suggest it unless multiple experts recommended it to me. However, if we are talking about moral issues, we have to understand that a questionable treatment for a questionable disease cannot be morally obligatory.
What does it even mean to "condone a disorder"? One condones bad behavior or good behavior, and this resolution only condones good behavior. I cannot condemn the flu or condone brown hair. They exist independent of judgment. This is why the Church leaves such speculation to scientists and clinicians; She only deals with people and their moral actions.