What’s Pres. Obama promoting now?

The First Gay President, as Newsweek dubbed him, once promoted infanticide.

What’s he promoting now?

Obama encourages Boy Scouts of America to end ban on gays

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama on Sunday encouraged the Boy Scouts of America to end its ban on gay members and leaders, days before the group is expected to vote on the controversial and long-standing rule.
In an interview with CBS, anchor Scott Pelley asked the president if he believed scouting should be open to gays.
“Yes,” Obama said simply.
Asked to elaborate, Obama – who last year gave his backing to the right of same sex couples to marry – said gays and lesbians should be able to participate in “every institution” that others can.
“My attitude is … that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does, in every institution and walk of life,” he said.
“The Scouts are a great institution that are promoting young people and exposing them to, you know, opportunities and leadership that will serve people for the rest of their lives, and I think that nobody should be barred (from) that.”


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals, The future and our choices and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. JohnE says:

    Homosexuals can already participate in BSA as members and leaders. It’s the openness that is being contested. There is no other purpose to allow the openness of homosexuality in BSA other than to promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle choice. That has no place in BSA or anywhere, but especially with young men and boys.

  2. jhayes says:

    As I understand the change the BSA is considering, it would shift the decisionmaking about who can be admitted to a local Scout troop to the Catholic Parish that sponsors the troop. Sounds like subsidiarity to me.

  3. Supertradmum says:

    Hello, stage four of persecution and the beginning of the insistence that religious orders, churches, schools will have to hire fornicators, adulterers, lgtbs in private Catholic schools and so on. Just wait, and all in the name civil rights, we shall see churches persecuted for not hiring those who do not practice Christianity.

    The BSA is more Christian in America than in Europe, where it is more in the tradition of secular humanism. Too bad these venerable groups are targeted by less than dignified governments.

  4. Fabula Rasa says:

    Maybe my fellow readers can help me out here, or you can, Father. I admit the BSA puzzles me, in light of Church teachings. The Church (unlike some crackpot evangelical groups) does not teach us that sexual orientation (or any of our body’s native urges) can necessarily be changed, or even that such orientations or urges are sinful in and of themselves: it is our action, our response to such urges, that leads us either into sin or away from it. A young man who is gay and knows it, but who struggles to lead a chaste life and who has taken on himself the yoke of that chastity, is a spiritual model to us all. What would possibly be the argument against having such a young man as a Scout? I am not sure what is meant by “openness,” because not all open acknowledgment of one’s orientation presumes an affirmation of homosexual action as rightly ordered. What about the young man who says yes, I’m gay, and yes, I’m chaste – let me tell you why? Thus it is difficult for me to separate the BSA’s policies from simple distaste for homosexual young men – and that sort of distaste is, it occurs to me, a much graver sin than homosexual action.

  5. pmullane says:

    No matter his personal opinions, the proper answer for a President or any other public official to the question of ‘should scouting be open to gays?’ is ‘that is up to the relevant organisation, its not my place to pass comment on that’. It is interesting (in a bad way) and instructive of the liberal busybody mindset that they feel capable to pass comment on every issue under the sun. We know, of course, that Obama believes his own ‘kind of a God’ hype, and that it is therefore not possible for him not to have an opinion on any topic for us to genuflect in front of. We also know, of course, that todays ‘opinion’ is tomorrows legislation. But the idea that a polititian, let alone the most powerful polititian in the country, should see fit to weigh in on this question is so ridiculous as to be risable.

  6. teomatteo says:

    The man should put his ‘spare’ energy into foreign policy. Is that too much to ask?

  7. mamajen says:


    Thank you for that clarification–I was just about to post that I have mixed feelings about this, but now I see that I was misinformed about what is already allowed. I believe the outright banning of “gays” is wrong. However, there is no reason why sexual preferences, whether same sex or opposite sex, need to be central to anything the Boy Scouts are doing–I agree with you about the “openness”. That said, I do know of men who were Boy Scouts and had bad experiences with predatory homosexuals (adults and children), and that has, unfortunately, rather scarred them for life, so I’m not sure the status quo necessarily works, either.

    Kids (and I guess too many adults) need to be taught how to behave respectfully toward those they are attracted to, whatever the gender. If they can’t behave appropriately, they should be chucked out of the organization. Parents also need to be teaching their children about what is appropriate and what is not, and that if they feel uncomfortable, they need to say something. We can’t assume that any organization (whether Scouts or church, or anything else) is automatically safe.

  8. The Sicilian Woman says:

    It was only a matter of time before the Boy Scouts fell. There are organizations (such as Intel) that won’t support them and other organizations that won’t let them use their facilities. Money talks, people. (Unless you are Dan Cathy of Chick-fil-A. He and the company seem to have weathered the storm, but I think that also had a lot to do with the amazing show of support they had last year.) Plus, in this poisoned culture, “celebrities,” including Obama, are the new God(s), and they’ve spoken out against the BSA ban. Other organizations (if there are any left) will fall, too. Our Church will be the last and only bastion of morals and sanity in a very short time to come.

    There needs to be a male alternative to the American Heritage Girls (Girl Scouts, but with morals), asap.

  9. JohnE says:

    jhayes, the proposed policy would be subsidiarity, but I think it needs to be balanced with solidarity. There is such a thing as too much subsidiarity. I think one example is when such subsidiarity basically renders the definition of a group meaningless. When each BSA council defines for itself what its policies and values are going to be, what’s the point of there even being a BSA? If the Catholic Church were to say that each parish could define for themselves what they believe and how they will do the liturgy, that’s also an example of subsidiarity gone too far.

  10. acardnal says:

    Are we going to have one parish where the gay agenda is welcome in the parish-sponsored BSA Scout troop and the next parish down the block where it is not? I think the bishop will have something to say about that if this proposal comes to fruition.

  11. JohnE says:

    Fabula Rasa,
    I agree that open acknowledgment of one’s orientation does not necessarily imply an affirmation of homosexual activity as rightly ordered. I also doubt that anyone pressuring BSA to change their policies has any interest in promoting a chaste lifestyle among homosexuals. Even if they were, the BSA is for boys up to age 18. While this might be something for a young man could discuss privately with a leader, it is not something that most parents are going to feel is appropriate for a leader to share with their sons privately or for anyone to share publicly. Remember also that cub scouts (1st – 5th grade) is also part of the BSA.

  12. JohnE says:

    Sicilian Woman,
    One possible alternative: Columbian Squires, which is part of the Knights of Columbus, is for boys 10-18.

  13. Gregorius says:

    It’s a very tricky issue. True, I’m sure there are a good number of scouts and scouters who would rather not use scouting to promote a homosexual lifestyle, myself being among them. On the other hand, the current ban is simply for people who are KNOWN to have SSA, both adults and youth. We Catholics wouldn’t ban someone from the sacraments simply because they have SSA (assuming of course they are not acting on it), and we wouldn’t tell someone they can’t be Catholic because they have SSA. Scouting also has a strict youth protection program, and all new scouts are required to go over what abuse is and how to avoid it before achieving their first rank. This is the ONLY time the topic of sexuality is brought up before the scouts themselves. The BSA specifically does not promote any sexuality or sexual activity in its programs (unlike their UK counter-part, who have been known to give their youth condoms), and for better or worse does not promote any one religious affiliation (though you are still required to have one!). Thus, there is no reason why you can tell a kid who follows all the rules and principles of scouting he can’t be a model scout simply because he has SSA, and there is no reasonable way to exclude adults who keep to themselves and don’t bring the topic up. The only problem I foresee is in the cub scouts, where most of their meetings happen at the residences of the den leaders, who are usually the parents of the cubs. Unless the BSA changes the rules on how to conduct den meetings, there is no way to avoid the possibility of holding them at the homes of same-sex couples.

  14. jhayes says:

    Mamajen wrote: “Kids (and I guess too many adults) need to be taught how to behave respectfully toward those they are attracted to, whatever the gender. If they can’t behave appropriately, they should be chucked out of the organization.”

    I agree. Our parish doesn’t have a scout troop but we do have mixed groups of teenage boys and girls who go to other parts of the country during the Summer to work on service projects – rebuilding after disasters, working in homeless shelters, etc. The issue is not sexual orientation but how people act toward others.

    Adults who volunteer for any of our Youth Ministry programs have to go through extensive background checks. Again, the issue is not sexual orientation but whether they might pose a danger to children.

  15. vox borealis says:

    It’s all part of the longer game to redefine freedom of religion as freedom of worship (especially if worship means one hour on Sunday and no more). Institutions like the Boy Scouts or the YMCA or the Salvation Army may start out as Christian-grounded entities or even extensions of a given Christian denomination, but since their public face appears to be secular, they will pressured to accept any and all regardless of whether those individuals adhere to the teachings of the founding Christian group. Denying people access is then spun as a civil rights issue rather than freedom of religion issue. It’s just like the HHS mandate. And consider the potential effects of the president’s words if you change “gays” to “women”—the target falls squarely on an all male priesthood.

    Get used to it people. We have rapidly entered the phase when religion is circumscribed almost entirely to private worship, and any attempt to take religion into the public square—the creation and running of Christian charitable organizations, the decision of individual Christians to work or run their businesses according to Christian principles—will be heavily regulated by the State and increasingly made impossible. We have already created the Leviathan, but it is now coming to realize the full scope of its power.

  16. LisaP. says:

    Ah, for the good old days, even in my lifetime, when I didn’t know who was having sex with whom.

  17. mamajen says:


    Agree totally! The thought about Cub Scout meetings being held at home crossed my mind, too. That could be problematic. I wouldn’t be thrilled about my child getting the idea that cohabiting heterosexual couples are the norm though, either. No matter what it’s not an easy situation in this day and age.

  18. The Masked Chicken says:

    The BSA is Federally Chartered. From Wikipedia:

    “Federally chartered corporation

    The BSA holds a Congressional charter under Title 36 of the United States Code,[19] which means that it is one of the comparatively rare “Title 36” corporations in the United States.[20] The 1916 statute of incorporation established this institution amongst a small number of other patriotic and national organizations which are similarly chartered,[21] such as the Girl Scouts of the USA, the American Legion, the Red Cross, Major League Baseball, and the National Academy of Sciences. The federal incorporation was originally construed primarily as an honor, however it does grant the chartered organization some special privileges and rights, including freedom from antitrust and monopoly regulation, and complete control over the organization’s symbols and insignia. As example, outside of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, no other youth organizations may use the term “scouts” or “scouting” in their name.

    The special recognition neither implies nor accords Congress any special control over the BSA, which remains free to function independently.[22]”

    So, the BSA should just tell President Obama to shut the hell up. His opinion is incendiary and irrelevant. He was never a Boy Scout, was he, so what right does he have to get involved? Just because it has the word, “America, ” in its title does not mean that Obama has to stick his nose in. He is using this for political advantage. The BSA should call him out on it, forcefully. Shame him, if that is possible, for his actions.

    The Chicken

  19. Legisperitus says:

    Second term. No need to “evolve.” He can say what he’s thought all along. And smirk while saying it.

  20. The Masked Chicken says:

    Forgive me, Vox Borealis, I can’t resist a tiny change in your too true paragraph:

    ” We have rapidly entered the phase when religion is circumscribed almost entirely to private worship, and any attempt to take religion into the public square—the creation and running of Christian charitable organizations, the decision of individual Christians to work or run their businesses according to Christian principles—will be heavily regulated by the State and increasingly made impossible the chance for martyrdom” :)

    The Chicken

  21. monmir says:

    It is better to stand courageously to defend our principles rather than running for cover like cowards and be defeated and eventually thrown out of our own organization.
    This is only a preview of what is coming our way. Are we going to accept everything?

  22. Lynne says:

    Doesn’t this eventually mean that gay Troop leaders will okay? Is that a good thing?

  23. vox borealis says:


    You said it!

  24. momoften says:

    Sexual preference (acceptance of) has no place in schools, or youth organizations. The
    problem EVERYONE seems to forget is that we SHOULD NOT be placing emphasis on any
    sexual lifestyles of our youth. They need to mature , they need the opportunity to be kids.
    Society is promoting a SEX filled lifestyle on our youth wherever our youth are. That is the problem. Sexual orientation has NO PLACE in youth organizations, or schools-period. It is forcing kids to place themselves into deciding what orientation they have-almost like it is cool to be gay or lesbian so you can have special rights/attention. I pray the BSA does not ‘open the closet door’. Isn’t it odd in all of this no one in the Media has said much about the predator problem BSA had?
    As good as an organization BSA has been, if they go ahead, they can no longer be good for our young men and boys.

  25. The Masked Chicken says:

    The time will come when we must simply quote St. Peter: It is better to obey God than man and tell them that we will obey laws when they actually are laws, not mere coercion. When will we start, en masse, to tell the government that they no longer know how to pass laws? Laws must have certain constitutive elements: they must be reasonable, not burdensome, able to be fulfilled, etc. Laws which are not reasonable are not laws and are not subject to obedience. Legislators need to be told when they do a bad job.

    Has it ever occurred to them that there will be some days when they just don’t have to legislate? I mean, how often do we really need a new law? I say, let Congress be allowed the luxury of not working when there is nothing to be done, instead of inventing new crises just so they can appear busy. It’s okay, guys, we want you to go sip champagne on your yachts. The fear of not seeming to be working has bloated the law books and made laws exist where there need be none and has primed the legislators to consider even looking at the stupid laws as a solemn obligation. I think Congress is too Law-shocked. They need some R & R. No new laws, today. Say it with me: no new laws, today. You know you want to.

    Oh, it occurred to me, last night, how to cripple Obamacare – if everyone who is pro-life (everyone) refused to pay the Obamacare tax, it would put it out of business. Let’s see the government come after 100 million people. That is how you tell the government you have lost confidence in them.

    The Chicken

  26. Cincinnati Priest says:

    To those post-ers who are torn on this issue, I would suggest that you haven’t thought through consequences seriously enough.

    First of all, even if the decision is thrown troop to troop, imagine the “second class citizenship” this will cause among homosexual activists, who will certainly try to vilify the hold-out troops (threatening boycotts of sponsors, etc). Mark my words, even if BSA does this as a first pass solution, it will be just a matter of time before they require all troops to comply.

    Second of all, recall that the BSA is a national organization. That is part of the positive aspect of the group. The boys have wonderful activities with troops across their regions and sometimes across the country (summer camps, jamborees, mountain hiking trip to New Mexico, etc.) If at one of these scout gatherings, another troop leader is speaking openly about his “lover” — or worse, bringing him along to events and publicly displaying affection for him — what is the hold-out Catholic troop to do? There would be nothing in Boy Scout policy that would prevent this.

    If the Boy Scouts do cave (which in all likelihood they will), you can bet it won’t be long before they become like the Girl Scouts, who, at a national level are very supportive of immoral groups such as Planned Parenthood. Part of each troops funds goes to the national groups, so they would be complicit in supporting them.

    These are just a few items that I am thinking of off the top of my head. I am sure there are many, many more problems with the organization caving in.

    Pray that they have the courage to stand for moral truth, in the face of tremendous political and economic pressure not to.

    As a pastor of a parish with a troop, I have already written national to express my extreme displeasure with their willingness to even consider caving in and abandoning their principles.

  27. jhayes says:

    Lynne wrote: “Doesn’t this eventually mean that gay Troop leaders will okay? ”

    As John E pointed out: “Homosexuals can already participate in BSA as members and leaders” – as long as they hide their sexual orientation.

    Everone who volunteers as a Scout leader should have to pass extensive background and criminal records checks to screen out people who might abuse children – all Catholic parishes here require this for anyone who will be working with children.

  28. wmeyer says:

    The BSA Youth Protection policies appear to me to be more detailed than those in Civil Air Patrol Cadet Protection Program, with which I am more familiar. However, one element in the CAP membership is that ALL adult members must submit fingerprints for a Federal background check. As I understand it, this precludes the possibility, for example, of registered sex offenders being granted membership. If these policies–in either organization–are followed as written, however, then there should be no potential for inappropriate contact.

    In practice, such policies are dependent on local enforcement; members of the local organization must be committed to the principles of the organization, and the protection of their minor members. One can easily imagine that the requirement for at least two adult members to be present to fail if the two adults share the same sinful desires. One reason for the two adult rule is the protection of adult members from false accusations by minors, and yes, they do happen.

    Any sexual contact between two members at any event of the organization should be grounds for termination of membership. On any camping excursion, even married adult members should recognize that the limited potential for privacy argues in favor of no sexual activity.

  29. tzard says:

    As we see, there are several issues at play here. The proposal, I think, is worse than “allowing gays” – it’s creeping relativism. Basically, when a scout says in his oath “…to keep myself…morally straight” – it’s no longer going to have any meaning. You’d have to go back and say “well, what group is sponsoring his troop?”. Others have rightly asked whether the prohibition against atheists is next to fall.

    The issue of being a chaste homosexual – is a red herring – as the “activists” have defined being sexually active as part of who they are. While the Church’s separates inclination and action (I might add the LDS church which has a big part of the scouts thinks similarly) – the whole “discussion” becomes an exercise in newspeak. To many, if not most, being “gay” implies the subculture and the sin.

  30. The Masked Chicken says:

    Something the New Testament authors never could have conceived of a society where debate is short-circuited by a method of discourse that has become the plaything of psychology. True, rhetoric has a long, venerable history, but one wonders how the apostles would have added to their teachings in an environment where emotions can be modulated by psychotropic drugs, subliminal influence, and a language so verticalized that one single sentence can be taken to mean one thing and its opposite.

    You’ve got it all wrong. The martyr of the future will not shed his blood, he will shed his soul, for his mind will be the plaything of men. There are drugs available, even now, that can make a person totally compliant to the will of another. These can be made in large quantities, should the need arise. There has been no need, so far, because the will of many men has been eroded by far softer, sensual means.

    Prisons will not be overcrowded with martyrs waiting to be fed to the lions. They will be strapped down and injected with the latest SOMA (cf. Brave New World) and after that, willingly show up for the yearly booster.

    Better sinning through science.

    I think I need to get some sleep. My nightmares seem to be bleeding through to the daytime. Still, I think the time of logical persuasion of their listeners that the apostles counted on may be coming to an end. I am not a conspiracy theorist. It is just that we know war in a new way that the apostles could not see. Just as the Americans expected the Korean War to be just like a standard European war and were shocked by the asymmetric tactics of the enemy (see: Asymmetric warfare in Wikipedia), we are engaged in an asymmetric war for the minds and the hearts of men, today, and we’d better start figuring out our strategy before the other side surprises us by theirs.

    The Chicken

    The Chicken

  31. Cantor says:

    Chicken et al,

    The President of the United States is the Honorary President of the Boy Scouts of America. Like it or not, he has both the right and, in a sense, the obligation to speak out on issues affecting the organization. Similarly, he has the right to resign his position and assume among the great unwashed masses the same right to express his personal opinion that you and I share. But I think that the resignation of the nation’s Chief Executive would not bode well for the Scouts’ long term goals.

    That said…

    Adults molesting children? Fire up the kilns at the millstone factory.

    But get rid of the gay kids for being gay? Not necessarily acting, but merely acknowledging? How about the straight kids (and their fathers) who sit around the campfire and boast of their ‘conquests’ along the line? What of the parents who ignore their sons and use Scouting as a free babysitting service but sit on the Troop Committee as The Righteous? Charming role models.

    Why not focus on our own Church instead of expecting the Scouts to do it all? Shouldn’t we be the leaders? How about kicking our 12-year-old kids out of Confirmation class for supporting gay rights? Excommunicate them now! Want to become Catholic? Better sign the heterosacramentum first. RCIA teachers who don’t go to confession weekly? Begone, Satan!

    Come to think of it, we should just tell all of the sinners to leave. Scouting, society, the Church. Pack up and go away. That would leave lots more room for the remainders. Of course we’d have to drop the “through my fault” stuff; acknowledging personal sin won’t pass muster. But it would sure clear up the confusion over Christ’s blood being poured out only for the ‘many’.

    Heck – we could re-translate it to say “the very very few left”.

  32. Cantor says:

    WMeyer – Scouting does follow that same policy. All adult applicants are fingerprinted. Most units also do reference checks to ensure nothing in the individual’s background that may not have risen to the level of criminal notice. As you’re likely aware, of course, it means that CAP, Little League, BSA, etc., have leaders not yet caught in wrongdoing, but it’s the best that can be done.

    Scouting shares CAP’s “no-lone zone” policy. Always 2 adults/1 scout or vice versa.

    Our diocese and church also follow this path. For example, altar servers dress in the generic robing room, and parents are asked to accompany and stay with their kids until there is at least one additional server present. The kids are not to loiter there, but once vested they’re to wait in the public narthex.

    It has taken decades to get this far, but its getting better.

  33. Black Jaque says:

    Some things to note:

    1) The BSA would not allow a man with a live-in same-sex partner to serve as a Scout leader for the same reason it would not allow an openly homosexual man to serve. By openly homosexual I believe that would mean they couldn’t serve as a scoutmaster, and unappologetically profess their engagement in perverted activities, or perhaps hold dual membership in the BSA and some other LGBT organization. Now suppose a scoutmaster was a member of the Catholic Church’s Encourage which promotes chaste living for homosexuals? I don’t think that question was ever answered.
    2) Allowing individual troops to deal with the question doesn’t solve the problem with all the national and district level camps, programs, and positions. Does anyone else forsee a firestorm of problems when an LGBT activist gets employed as a District Commissioner who has a number of Catholic troops under his authority? And what about the Camp Councellors and employees at the summer camps? Sure the TROOP might have a ban on gay scoutmasters, but will you send your 12 year-old for a week at summer camp?
    3) Did Obama purposefully make this statement on a Sunday? Does the Freedom From Religion Foundation know about this? It seems to me that our president has stepped out of his competency and is trying his hand at preaching. I believe Dolan and all the other religious leaders should issue him a good smack-down for this. THIS is what was meant by separation of church and state! We do not need our President pontificating on morals on a Sunday!!! But I suppose he can’t help if he was asked a question; although I doubt this was a surprise question.

  34. Makemeaspark says:

    As far as a boy asking to be a member of a Boy Scout troop, and the boy claims that he has same sex attraction, this should depend upon the ability of the troop leader to direct the boy in mentally healthy pursuits, instead of the detrimental homosexual lifestyle. The boy scout troop in this case could save the boy’s life and perhaps be a place of support for his therapy.

    Bringing an adult into any leadership position in a scout troop however, would be highly irresponsible. One would certainly not encourage any other person with unstable mental health to be in the leadership in a troop.

    (please God, do not let any gay rights activists find this comment, amen)

  35. Black Jaque says:

    The BSA would probably discipline or toss the heterosexual scoutmaster who tells campfire tales of his exploits.

    The BSA has always been VERY tolerant of gay scouts! But intolerant of proud-to-be-gay scoutmaster. I believe they also denied the Eagle Rank to an in-your-face-proud-to-be-gay scout. Note the difference between being denied a rank advancement and getting the boot from the organization.

  36. LisaP. says:

    Kids aren’t gay or straight. Accepting this assumption is a step in the wrong direction. And certainly allowing children to self-identify as gay or straight is very, very sad.

    My daughter is on a forum for young people, the members periodically start threads asking what others’ favorite colors are, what books they read, and what their sexual orientation is. It has become a fashionable way to brand yourself. It’s also a very clever way for a predator to infiltrate a forum and pull out an individual young person for personal internet contact, sympathizing with him or her for her hard time with his or her “orientation”.

    My kid checks her blood sugar ten times or more a day, and it’s always tempting to ask her, “what are you?” She’ll do it herself, ask, “What am I?” But we try to tell her that her blood sugar is that number, she isn’t. She’s not a number. She’s not one of her attributes. It’s funny to me that in a world where we recognize that saying, “I’m a cripple” can be problematic so we instead say “I’m a person who has a medical problem with my leg”, we’re so eager to label people as “gay”, eager to the point of labeling children that way.

    Clubs for children should allow in children. There’s no reason whatsoever to be discussing sexuality with kids.

  37. Ann Roth says:

    Cantor-Those advocating for changing this policy are those who are open, practicing homosexuals so please spare us your indignation that we, a Church made up of sinners, would object to sin. This is about unrepentant sinners wanting to be members in BSA. And yes, we do place restrictions on unrepentant public sinners in the church because they cause scandal.

    In addition, parents involved in scouting are there not to feel superior but to offer their time and talent to the program. Parents are also involved to make sure the program is safe on all fronts which includes making sure the troop follows all youth protection and health and safety guidelines. As a previous poster said youth protection policies are fine but if it isn’t followed it doesn’t help at all. In regards to background checks, it is only a good prevention method if the individual was caught previously. A predator that was never caught by authorities will slip through which makes two deep leadership and morally straight leaders critical. Again, two deep is only good if it is followed. These policies are followed at the local level.

    Cincinnati Priest has it right that there are long term consequences (negative) if this goes through. But the immediate consequence is that we cannot condone a homosexual lifestyle. This applies mostly to leaders but even with openly homosexual youth there is an immediate issue to deal with and that is that they are making their sexual preferences public knowledge and that is inappropriate in scouting or any youth setting. Same goes for the adults. That is the conversation that is not happening enough-keep your private life private and if you don’t like the way BSA does things start your own organization.

    Accepting them will only be the first step. Soon we will have diversity training, anti bullying programs (all aimed at heterosexuals of course) at the same time troops, districts and councils will be ripped apart with different policies trying to coexist. Summer camp would be a nightmare-men’s rooms, women’s room, gay adult bathrooms, gay youth bath rooms, straight youth bathrooms, gay tents, straight tents… Good grief.

    In regards to Cub Scout meetings, meetings in the home of den leaders is rare if ever these days. In 12 years of scouting we have never run into a pack that operates that way. Packs tend to meet on the same night in one place usually at their charter organization, for example parish hall. That said, all your concerns are still well founded because there are outside meeting events, gatherings, field trips.

    If this goes through, it is going to rip scouting apart. And for what so a minority of people can be confirmed in their sin? Great. The boys are the ones that are going to be hurt by this. Supertradmum is right, this is part of the persecution. They are starting with our children. Is that so that they can weaken the adults, make us capitulate rather than tell them they can’t be scouts anymore? No more Pinewood Derby?

    If the homosexual lobby thinks this will change hearts and minds, they are sadly mistaken. This is going to backfire and strengthen our resolve to protect our children and stand up for our faith.

    Our troop has been praying to St. George the patron of scouting since the news broke last week. Please pray for BSA to do the right thing, for parents to have courage and clarity no matter what happens and for our boys, that they will grow into men of strong moral character with a deep faith in God with or without scouting. St. George, pray for us.

  38. West of the Potomac says:

    There are several problems with the proposed (or reportedly proposed) BSA policy.

    1) The 2000 SCOTUS decision allowing the BSA to exclude openly homosexual leaders and scouts relied heavily on the BSA having an institutional viewpoint that homosexual activity was incompatible with scouting and its values. If the BSA allows local troops to make the decision, the BSA declares that there is nothing inherently incompatible and the activists will be lining the doors of court houses to enforce state and local restrictions on the local trooops that keep the policy as it is.

    2. Every scout and leader pledges hundreds or thousands of times the Scout Oath to remain morally straight. By allowing opening gay, and sexually active, homosexual leaders and scouts, the BSA will be in essence declaring those activities to be “morally straight.” And scouts and leaders will be affirming that every time they take that oath.

    3. By creating two types of scout troops, there is still the problem of scouts attending multi-troop events like summer camp. Let’s not kid ourselves that this is about the brave leader or scout carrying a large cross and resolutely remaining chaste. I have no doubt that those carrying such a cross are already involved in scouting. This is about activism and the norming of homosexual relationships and sexual activity.

    The Boy Scouts of America mission is: “The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical choices over their lifetime by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.”

    That’s a big mission and is hard enough to do. If one of the values of the Scout Oath (being morally straight) includes the affirmation of openly and active homosexuals, I’m not sure Catholic troops, leaders and scouts will be able to do that.

  39. wmeyer says:

    Scouting shares CAP’s “no-lone zone” policy. Always 2 adults/1 scout or vice versa.

    My one concern for CAP’s future is that as the official auxiliary of the Air Force, some policies trickle down. Should the day arrive when CAP is told that there must be acceptance of publicly active gays, I shall depart the organization.

  40. mike_b says:

    Along with an excellent list of concerns, West of the Potomac wrote:

    “… If one of the values of the Scout Oath (being morally straight) includes the affirmation of openly and active homosexuals, I’m not sure Catholic troops, leaders and scouts will be able to do that.”

    I am a Catholic and a Scout master of a parish sponsored troop. While I understand we should not discriminate against anyone, I am also aware that I have a duty to protect the young men under my charge.
    What we are talking about here is removing the restriction which has prevented openly homosexual men from becoming involved with scout troops. Although the policy will “not require any chartered organization to act in ways inconsistent with that organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs.”
    I took my concerns, which pretty much mirror West of Potomac’s, to our Councils District Executive. My discussion with him while informative does not give me much hope the current policy will stand. He indicated that a subcommittee which looked into this made the recommendation. He also stated that multiple members of that committee were Catholic Bishops! His answer to most of my concerns was “we’ll figure it out when it happens”. The rest of the discussion was even more disheartening.

  41. acardnal says:

    Yes, we all need to behave respectfully toward folks with same-sex orientation – but which the Church considers “disordered” by the way (CCC 2357-59). They are made in the image and likeness of God. BUT what will happen if/when the BSA Leader in your church-sponsored Troop is living with his/her same sex partner? Or has been “married” in the civil courts to his/her same-sex partner? This should not be tolerated. My pastor recently terminated the organist for the same reason and I supported him. It’s gravely immoral behavior (mortal sin) for which the Church cannot give the perception of condoning by employing them or allowing them use of church facilities.

  42. jhayes says:

    Here is the video of the interview with the President that started this discussion:

    It was part of the pre-game show for yesterday’s Super Bowl. He was interviewed by Scott


  43. jhayes says:

    Scott Pelley

  44. PA mom says:

    For a guy who doesn’t have any sons, he sure does have a lot of opinions…

    Hopefully, it is worth an act of penance each time we must be bombarded by another.

  45. Matt R says:

    There is a letter on the National Catholic Committee on Scouting’s website from the chairman that is worth reading.
    The BSA is not the place for sexuality at all. National policy forbids even the discussion of normal sexual questions, and the leaders need to refer the youth to a parent, pastor, or other adult. They presume that these issues are dealt with at home. Even having someone with same-sex attraction, trying to live a chaste life, injects the issue into the unit, and it affects the parents’ right to be primary educators if the person is openly gay and living a homosexual lifestyle. The Scout troop is not a good place for an adult struggling with SSA in my opinion.
    National is currently facing a membership and money shortfall. They think most people quit or stopped giving money because of the policy. The problem is they ignore the fact that this change caters to a teeny minority, and those non-homosexuals pleased by this are contracepting themselves out of existence (never mind the fact that reproduction is impossible with homosexuals anyways!). They are ignoring the coming explosion of traditional Catholics and LDS. National is also ignoring what happened to the Episcopal Church/Anglican Communion, and in GSUSA. By the way, I could see several Prot. denominations splitting, since BSA is the official ministry program for instance in the UMC.
    West of the Potomac hit it on the head; it only works until troops come together.
    mike_b, we already had a troop in Lincoln Heritage Council, in Louisville KY, break the policy, and it was a Catholic troop; the pastor even had this man involved in other parish ministries! You can search this on the Courier-Journal website.
    I sorta wish we could split into sectarian Scout organizations, and when the World Org. for the Scout Movement meets the groups will agree not to vote for any changes to existing compromises at the international level (for example, WOSM has so far not removed Duty to God for the whole movement, only local groups have gone secular). I will miss going to Philmont, and I really wanted to be on World Jamboree 2019 staff in W Va.

  46. Supertradmum says:

    Gays should be banned for two reasons: one, working with boys either pre or post pubescent is a temptation and we are not supposed to put ourselves in areas of temptations. That is the sin of presumption, among other things.

    Second, modelling. Part of being a boy scout is learning to be a man and being in contact with men who do not have an “objective disorder”.

  47. acardnal says:

    The BSA and other organizations – including the “first gay President” – need to stop catering to the powerful, influential and wealthy homosexual lifestyle lobby. The government needs to respect religious freedom and conscience rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

    Herewith an interesting fact from the 2010 US Census Bureau: “Same-sex partners make up less than 1 percent of U.S. households. A small fraction of those partners are raising children.”


  48. Makemeaspark says:

    Thanks to LisaP who brings up a VERY important point. RESPONSIBLE professionals hold that in adolescents (which is a period that can range as old as age 26 in men), there are a lot of conflicting emotions connected to the physical changes in the human body. Therefore for ANYONE to tell an adolescent that they are same sex oriented is highly irresponsible. Rather the role of adults in the life of this young person is to reassure them that they are still in the process of learning to reign in their sexual feelings and they can actually work to suppress unnatural or inappropriate urges.

  49. wmeyer says:

    LisaP said: Clubs for children should allow in children. There’s no reason whatsoever to be discussing sexuality with kids.

    Agreed, but the orientation of adult group leaders is a different matter entirely.

  50. Matt R says:

    I signed up for Scouting. The KofC and Columbian Squires have an entirely different, though very good and praiseworthy, mission. Same with the Blue Knights. Scouting is 3/4 outing. The others are not.
    I really like the version of the Scout Law and Oath used by the Scouts de France (the Catholic organization) prior to 1964 and it would be cool to start a new organization for Catholic Scouts that more closely resembles the one founded by Lord Baden-Powell in England, and Fr Sevin in France, but with necessary adaptations for today’s interests.
    Supertradmum, exactly.

  51. NBW says:

    Supertradmum you are so right!
    I can’t fathom why this is such a big issue in our country when we have a lot more to worry about like the economy and lack of jobs in this country.

  52. wmeyer says:

    Herewith an interesting fact from the 2010 US Census Bureau: “Same-sex partners make up less than 1 percent of U.S. households. A small fraction of those partners are raising children.”

    While I am inclined to believe that the number is relatively small, we must bear in mind the inherent unreliability of U.S. Census figures, as they indicate, specifically, those who answered the particular question in the affirmative. Even so, numerous estimates have put the number at less than 2%–the claims by vocal members of the minority that they represent 10-15% are obviously self-serving and open to doubt, if not scorn.

    I have an old friend who is actively homosexual, and has been for at least 50 years. He is also (as I believe is common in that group of the population) very casually promiscuous. At the same time, he considers himself devoutly Catholic, and has for decades been a committed participant in lay support of the diocese in which he resides. He has traveled on more than one occasion to Rome with a priest. The ambiguity of such a situation, and the high risk of public perception of scandal make it very hard to comprehend the priest agreeing to the travel together. Although this may mesh with CCC 2357 and 2358, it clearly does not comport with 2359–the man in question being very open about his preferences and actions.

    I pray that our priests and bishops will reconsider any such opportunities for public scandal, even though it may be only in the eye of the beholder.

  53. Papabile says:

    Practical problem calling this “subsidiarity” is that these local organizations come together all the time at camps, camporees, jamborees etc. How does a parent who doesn’t want their kids in a troop with gays screen them out when it comes to group events?

    This is ridiculous.

  54. LisaP. says:

    I don’t even know what to say about the sexual orientation of the leader. If we were still living in a world where homosexual men were discreet / secretive about their actions that would be one thing, I guess — then the concern would be abuse, and the answer would be that no one should be in a position where they could abuse a child in one of these clubs (although I think things like a two adult policy, while helpful — they’re naive; predators use positions of authority and admiration with kids to develop relationships, then they extend the relationship outside of the group and the abuse occurs there). But since so many homosexual folks are open and proud about their actions, there’s no way for leadership to be anything but a promotion of these actions. After all, that’s what a leader does — lead the way. It’s not like these guys are scout organizers, or scout facilitators — they are scout leaders.

  55. wmeyer says:

    LisaP, let me disabuse you. Fifty years ago, in the small town in which I was raised, the neighbor across the street was discreet, as a rule. But he had an unfortunate preference for minors, and police who had clearly received information from someone laid a trap for him baited with a 17 year old. I believe he had been ensnared in the nearby city, where he could be somewhat anonymous, and where the police in question were based. So open and proud or discreet, a man who lusts after boys is still a danger.

  56. Papabile says:


    11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

    12. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. No. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.

    13. Including “homosexual orientation” among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person’s homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.

    16. Finally, where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to church organizations and institutions. The church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws (cf. No. 17).

  57. LisaP. says:

    I don’t have training, but it seems to me from teaching kids that even into adolescents and puberty, like you say, there’s nothing set in stone and kids really need to not feel the pressure to have sexuality all figured out, much less to have a sexual preference figured out. Younger than that, it’s horrific to label kids. It reminds me of the early identification programs in schools, where they try to figure out when the three year old is in pre-school if he’s going to have learning disabilities when he gets around to reading. It’s ostensibly “early intervention” to help, but there are tons of conditions we know now where if you just leave the kid alone it works itself out; early labeling puts a finger on the scale.

  58. LisaP. says:

    I completely agree that those who abuse young people and children, that’s not discretion, that’s predation.
    I do believe that there are homosexual men who engage in homosexual sex but do not abuse young people (I’ll skip giving my opinion on whether the tendencies co-exist in many, it’s a rambling one! But there are *some* who at least do not follow that tendency if it exists). These are the men I am talking about. At the risk of seeming harsh, I think when there was at least public shame about the acts then we didn’t have the cultural problem of young men being told they need to admire openly and active homosexual men and follow where they lead. That’s all I mean.

    I also read a great article once that noted what damage our culture has done to male friendship. It was very objective and made a logical point — in a culture where there was *no* stigma to homosexuality, men could be very close and friendly in public because they wouldn’t care if people thought they were homosexual. In a culture where homosexuality was unthinkable, young men could walk down the street together (as they do in some Arab countries) hand in hand and not worry, because no one will think they are homosexual. But in our culture, boys are in the position of not wanting to “look gay” so they can’t form a close friendship with another boy. Similar problem with adult male role models for young men, they can’t get close to the young men because it could create the appearance of impropriety or the young man might misunderstand. It’s a loss.

  59. wmeyer says:

    But in our culture, boys are in the position of not wanting to “look gay” so they can’t form a close friendship with another boy.

    Agreed. And I think this has been a contributing factor, as well, in the decline of men’s dress habits. The cultivation of tail-gate party appropriate dress is apparently acceptably masculine; a suit and tie less so. And polished shoes! The horror!

  60. acardnal says:

    Papabile, excellent work!

    I knew the Holy See had written about homosexuals and teaching and coaching positions and was going to post it but hadn’t found the time to do so yet.

    You could have easily bolded the following from para 13, too, as it is most appropriate in our times:

    “13. Including “homosexual orientation” among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices.

    And that document was promulgated in 1992. Twenty years ago!

    What is sadly connected with this issue is that there are already organized efforts underway by the sex perverts (pedophilia, hebephilia, ephebophilia) to legalize their immoral activities just as they have successfully lobbied to legalize over the last few generations same-sex “marriage” and homosexual behavior (revocation of sodomy laws by SCOTUS) in states and around the world. They held a conference in Baltimore in 2011. The conference included panelists from Harvard University, the Johns Hopkins University, the University of Louisville, and the University of Illinois. They want the DSM to be modified.

    You can read about it here:


    I predict that within another generation or two, sex with children will be legal behavior. God help us.

    “All social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering,” Msgr. Wm. B. Smith, NYC.

    Loving Father, please allow through your permissive Will, the necessary chastisement to clean out the filth both inside and outside the Church.

  61. fvhale says:

    Dear acardnal, your prediction “within another generation or two” is deja vu. Of course, there are plenty of examples from history. American and European society almost got there in the mid-to-late-1970’s, then came back from the cliff due to the rise of AIDS and good old-fashioned “right and wrong, good and evil” that came back to American society under President Reagan. We were really close to this in the 1970’s already, in public media, in books, in college libraries, in academia, and, sadly, in many other situations; most of the evidence of the depth of moral decay has now been destroyed, because it became contraband in the 1980’s when new laws were passed protecting children. There are traces of it in the court documents of numerous (not just Catholic) cases. Sadly, I also know because I was (very) young college student in those days (in the territory of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles). The moral sewer rats and cockroaches just went into hiding until they can get the lights off again. I think it will probably happen, not for any particular political reason, or even “rights issues,” but simply because if human beings do not will to pursue at least the good and at best holiness, they are inevitably enslaved to their flesh. American society has moved a long way from letting the Christian God into the discussion (as back in the 1950’s and 1960’s), and even moved far from ideals of social good (the 1960’s) or a nostalgic moral good (the 1980’s). American society today is incredibly self-centered, self-worshipping, self-seeking and self-pleasing. Soon to be self-destructing.

  62. biberin says:

    So the Catholic Church has been raked over the coals for years now, for permitting homosexual men to have unsupervised contact with young teenaged boys, which resulted in abuse. And now people think maybe the Boy Scouts can play the same game with nobody getting hurt? This makes me think of Mark Shea’s two stages of moral reasoning: 1)What could it hurt?, followed by: 2)How could we have known??

  63. Cantor says:

    acardnal – Your point is well taken. And sadly true.

    I hope you don’t mind if I pray, however, that your gift from the Holy Spirit is not prophecy!

  64. jesusthroughmary says:

    Nobody will be fooled by the BSA’s nonsensical attempt to forge a nonexistent middle ground. The homosexualists will keep fighting until the BSA outright pronounces the active homosexual lifestyle as a moral good on par with marriage and family life, and the Catholics, the Mormons, and others of good will who adhere to an objectively true moral code will be forced to withdraw from the BSA because they will be funding a group that supports objective evil on a national level. Not to mention that if each council is free to interpret the Scout Law and Oath, then it will become meaningless as a universal statement of values. Better to just let your yes mean yes and your no mean no. I pray that the BSA makes the right call, the same call that they made just six months ago.

  65. There are CATHOLIC alternatives. I do some of the writing for Conquest boys clubs which integrates the faith into every aspect rather than adding it on.

  66. jesusthroughmary says:

    Matthew –

    Part of the appeal of the BSA is its sheer size, which gives it unparalleled resources, recognition and respect throughout society. It is not a bad thing that it’s interfaith – so is the world.

  67. The Masked Chicken says:

    “The President of the United States is the Honorary President of the Boy Scouts of America. Like it or not, he has both the right and, in a sense, the obligation to speak out on issues affecting the organization.”

    1. An honorary president (not a president de jure) has no rights and no obligations. It is a ceremonial title, only. Richard Dean Anderson is an honorary Brigadier General in the U. S. Air Force (because if his work on Stargate SG1), but let him try to command a squadron or state an opinion of Air Force Rules of Engagement and we will see how far that honorary rank goes.

    2. No one has either a right nor an obligation to cause scandal. By openly supporting evil from a position of supposed elevated social status (see 1, above) he is giving scandal.

    So, it is neither practically nor morally right nor obligatory for him to state an opinion on this issue – especially since he is so defective in his thinking.

    The Chicken

  68. LisaP. says:

    Never thought of that. I think you have a point.

  69. PostCatholic says:

    I’m curious about the point in a Catholic child’s development where they are introduced to the reality that there are gay men in the world, and that some of them are parents.

  70. DisturbedMary says:

    What’s he promoting? Looks a lot like NAMBLA coming down the pike.

  71. biberin says:

    PostCatholic, I think sex in general hit my kids’ radar when they were between 10 and 12 years old (as something applicable to them, beyond the bare mechanics of babymaking, which they knew far earlier), and homosexuality around the same time. I have no problem with them knowing what’s out there, and knowing that all people are worthy of respect regardless of whatever differences exist between us. That doesn’t mean I don’t teach about the morality of the spectrum of sexual behavior.

  72. Imrahil says:

    Dear @PostCatholic,

    if homosexual people are parents, it is either because of some practiced heterosexuality, or else, by adoption (leaving foster parents out for a moment because that’s principally a restricted and limited abortion).

    And concerning adoptions, I know that this is a highly political issue, but nevertheless on the factual account, we have so many prospective adoptive parents and so little adoptable children out there that we can cut all other arguments and reserve the children for the best environments available for them. That this includes first and foremost a happy married couple is absolutely self-explanatory.

  73. pmullane says:

    Hi Cantor, you say:

    “The President of the United States is the Honorary President of the Boy Scouts of America. Like it or not, he has both the right and, in a sense, the obligation to speak out on issues affecting the organization.”

    With the best will in the world, people dont appoint honourary presidents in expectation that they will be making policy. As an ignorant foreigner, I was unaware that the President held any honourary postion with the Boy Scouts but, if anything, it would mean that he’s in even less position to comment on policy.

    “Similarly, he has the right to resign his position and assume among the great unwashed masses the same right to express his personal opinion that you and I share. But I think that the resignation of the nation’s Chief Executive would not bode well for the Scouts’ long term goals.”

    He not only has the right, but the duty, to resign his position as an honourary president of an association that he feels is discriminatory. Perhaps he could become the honourary president of the association for the destruction of the dark skinned child….sorry I mean planned parenthood. He also has the right to have a personal opinion, being that he is (in name at least) a citizen legislator. However he is also the president of the United States of America. He can have opinions on a lot of things, is it proper for him to share them? Usually, no.

  74. jesusthroughmary says:

    They put the vote off until May. Keep praying and keep in contact with the BSA and the NCCS.

  75. acardnal says:

    Statement from the Diocese of Madison wherein the great Bishop Morlino shepherds his flock:
    As quoted in the Wisconsin State Journal, 7 Feb. 13:

    The Catholic Diocese of Madison, which maintains an active Scouting committee, on Wednesday released a statement supporting the national policy.
    “Important decisions like this should be made based on human reason and the natural law, and not because of pressure from outside groups, politicians, or the public,” the diocese said. “The Catholic Church teaches very clearly that the homosexual person ‘must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.’ That said, the Boys Scouts’ present policy does not amount to unjust discrimination.”
    The diocese said it will “pay close attention to what (the Scouts decide) and consider our future association accordingly.”


  76. dcs says:

    Romney also supports the BSA ending its ban on open and avowed homosexuals. What’s more, Romney has had this position since 1994, which was six years before the BSA’s victory in the Dale decision.


Comments are closed.