Presidential Impeccability

As you may or may not know, I expend a lot of effort into determining who to vote for. I don't believe in party politics, but in examining the positions and policies of individual candidates, and choose the one according to the principles of my faith and conscience. On the odd chance that you care what Mike thinks I will share my views about voting in general, and in the 2020 presidential election, in particular.

But the focus of this post is not to do all of that, but to speak to a particular issue - can a Catholic vote for Donald Trump given that he is "X" (substitute your own value for X - liar, adulterer, racist, etc.). I have seen a lot of arguments along the lines of
A: "Catholics can't vote for Biden because he is pro-abortion."
B: "Well, then Catholics can't vote for Trump because 'X'. therefore Catholics are free to vote for Biden as the lesser of two evils."

First off, there are more than two candidates. If you can't vote for Biden, that doesn't mean you have to vote for Trump, and vice versa. There are several other candidates, such as Brian Carroll, or Tom Hoefling, who embrace most of Catholic social teaching without being Joe Biden or Donald Trump. If you honestly can't vote in good conscience for either major party candidate, rather than violate your principles, vote for one of them, or write in another candidate. "But that is throwing away my vote" - nonsense. It is staying true to your values. If being on the "winning" side in a political contest is more important than your conscience and moral values, you need to rethink your priorities.

Back to the issue at hand. There are "non-negotiables" from a Catholic perspective. These are explained here, and I encourage you to read the whole thing, but here is a summary. From the EWTN site, the distinction is as follows:

Non-negotiable issues involving essential moral goods (e.g. life, liberty) are the most important. Essential goods directly oppose intrinsic evils which may never morally be chosen.

Negotiable issues, on the other hand, are not matters of essential goodness or evilness. Rather, they involve determining the best means, or policies, to achieve good ends.

If a candidate (in any race, not just POTUS) promotes any non-negotiable issues, a Catholic may not support that candidate unless there are no candidates who do not support non-negotiables, in which case he must vote for the candidate who he believes will do the least harm.

In the 2016 election, there were five non-negotiable issues identified specifically.

• Abortion
• Human Cloning
• Euthanasia (assisted suicide)
• Stem Cell Research
• Homosexual "Marriage"

In the 2020 elections, this is the list.

1. The dignity of human life from conception to natural death.
2. The dignity of marriage and family, upon which the good of every society and the human race itself depends.
3. The protection of the right of parents to educate their children. 

What happened? Did some issues become "negotiable"? Did new ones become "non-negotiable?" Part of it depends on what's at stake in an election. In 2016 parental rights to educate children wasn't an issue at all -  nobody was attacking that right. Now that right is threatened. The first four issues on the list did not go away, but have been combined into one item in this year's guidance.

Note that this list does not say anything about the impeccability (moral character) of the candidate. While moral character is important, we are not trying to canonize the person, we are hiring them to do a job, and the important thing is whether or not they will do a good job, not whether or not they have a good personal life. Unless Jesus or Mary are eon the ballot (and boy, I wish they were) we are always going to be voting for someone who is a sinner.

Now let's look at where Donald Trump stands on those issues, and others.

On the dignity of human life from conception to natural death, Donald Trump has been a steadfast champion. He has spoken numerous times about the dignity of human life. He is the first president to promote and attend the March for Life. He has done everything in his power to defund Planned Parenthood. He has surrounded himself with pro-life people, like Marjorie Danenenfelser, Alveda King, Abby Johnson, and others. He has appointed Supreme Court justices and federal judges who interpret the Constitution as it was originally written (and hence can work towards the overturn of Roe v Wade). Likewise his judicial choices oppose euthanasia. He has criticized and removed funding for fetal tissue research.

I have heard objections that Planned Parenthood's funding is at its highest level this year. That is not due to Donald Trump, but house Democrats, who have increased funding to make up for Trump's funding cuts. You can't blame a man for something someone else did.

I've also heard objections that Trump is not pro-life because he does "X" (supports the death penalty, puts kids in cages, wants to arrest immigrants, didn't fund social welfare program "Y", etc.). Some of those criticisms are justified, others are specious, but the one thing they have in common are that they are not non-negotiables. We cannot conflate not letting someone into your country with dismembering a baby. One is a prudential decision which may or may not be best for the common good, the other is murder, plain and simple.

On the dignity of marriage and family, Donald Trump has, for the most part, been a force for good. Again, his judicial nominations have been pro-family, and pro-religious freedom. According to an NBC News report Trump said, referring to same sex marriage:

“It’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law,” Trump said in a "60 Minutes" interview that aired Sunday night. “It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done. These cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And I’m fine with that.”

These comments appear to contradict statements Trump made during an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace in January, where he said he would "strongly consider" appointing Supreme Court justices who would repeal same-sex marriage.

Does that mean Trump supports a non-negotiable? I think it is a matter of personal interpretation. I see it as something similar to what Bishop Robert Barron said in an interview on the Rubin Report.

Rubin questioned the bishop on his “personal feelings” about the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling that legalized homosexual “marriage”: “I assume you felt it was a wrong decision by the court?”

“I do,” replied Barron. “But I don’t think I want to press it further. I think where we are right now in the States, I’ll apply the Aquinas principle. I think it would probably cause much more problems and dissension and difficulty if we keep pressing it.”

In other words, not wanting to press the issue at this time is a far cry from endorsing it. Given the second part of NBC's coverage, and other remarks the president has made, it seems clear that he does not support same sex marriage, nor does he believe Obergefell was correct, but it is not a hill to die on right now. Making this a campaign issue would likely cause more problems than it would help.

Still, if you personally feel those two words "I'm fine" undo his support of marriage and family in other areas and indicate true support for same sex marriage, then yes, you would have to not vote for Trump as a good Catholic.

On the right for parents to educate their children Trump is a strong ally. He has championed conscience rights, religious freedom, school choice and homeschooling without government interference. His choice for secretary of education, Betsy DeVos, is very much in favor of private and religious schools and homeschooling. The president's judicial nominees have been in favor of parental rights and religious rights.

All in all, I think you have to say that barring two words, made in a 60 Minutes interview, there is nothing you can point to about the president supporting non-negoatiable issues. Even those two words "I'm fine" do not, in my opinion, indicate "support" or "endorsement" of a non-negotiable. In fact, as the president's detractors point out, his actions have contradicted those two words.

I also see Catholics decrying other "non-negotiable" issues that the president supposedly supports. Here are a few:

The president supports the death penalty. This is true, but the death penalty is not a non-negotiable. According to Pope Francis' latest statements on the issue the death penalty is no longer needed. That does not change the church's long standing teaching that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Abortion is intrinsically evil because it is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. In the case of the death penalty, the human being isn't innocent, and is being killed in a manner of self defense. We shouldn't kill if we have a better means of defense, which is Pope Francis' point, but that doesn't change the teaching, just the circumstances.

The president is pro-gay because he appointed Richard Grenell acting director of the Office of National Intelligence, which made him the first openly gay Cabinet member. In addition, president Trump has worked to decriminalize homosexuality in the 69 countries where it is illegal, and worked on a plan to eradicate HIV/AIDS. The catechism says, paragraph 2358:

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. 

There is no reason not to hire a homosexual person for a job if their sexuality does not impact their ability to perform it, and if they are qualified. In fact, it would be unjust not to. Decriminalizing homosexuality sounds bad, until you realize that most of the criminal penalties being discussed are death. I don't think anybody believes that is just. And eradicating HIV/AIDS is a work of mercy. The disease is not restricted to homosexuals, and even if it were, they deserve to have their health needs met. Although homosexual acts are to be avoided, people with homosexual inclinations should be treated with respect and compassion.

Again, if you honestly feel that this constitutes promoting homosexuality, then by all means vote your conscience. To me this, like his words "I'm fine" do not rise to the level of support.

So can a Catholic vote for Donald Trump in good conscience? I believe one can. There are a few items (his reluctance to challenge Obergefell at this time, and his call for other countries to stop locking up and executing homosexuals) that one could interpret in such a way as to eliminate him as a potential candidate, but I don't believe either of these constitutes support of these issues, merely prudential decisions to get support to address larger issues, like the abortion of almost one million innocent children.

Read More

The Boy Scouts

The Boy Scouts of America's stated goal is to help boys become men who are of good moral character and good patriotic citizens. For over one hundred years it has long held certain policies to support this goal; policies directly based on those principles of the organization. The Boy Scout oath is:

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. 

Because of that the scouts did not accept atheists (since they do not believe in God), presumably they would not accept traitors (duty to country) and those who hold principles contrary to morality. "What morality?" you may ask. It doesn't really matter. Whether you are Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. pretty much every religion held to the same moral principles, since those moral principles were based on natural law.

The Boy Scouts of America has been sued over their membership policies numerous times, until in 2000 things came to a head in the supreme court, with the case "Boy Scouts of America v. Dale". In that case, the court confirmed that any private organization has a constitutional right to "freedom of association". In other words, the Boy Scouts have the right to exclude a person from membership when "the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints". In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court ruled that opposition to homosexuality is part of BSA's "expressive message" and that allowing homosexuals as adult leaders would interfere with that message.

Think about that. The Boy Scout's opposition to homosexuality was, according to the supreme court, part of their "message."

Fast forward to 2013. The board of directors of the Boy Scouts of America decides that homosexual boys can be members. This is a fundamental abandonment of the core values of the organization. However, it was couched as "well, these boys are just confused, and cannot be held responsible for their sexuality, and we should help them." A noble goal, but help them to what, exactly? It was pointed out that any Boy Scout who engages in any sexual activity can be expelled form the organization, and that policy wouldn't change and so we're not talking "active" homosexual boys.

There are a number of things wrong with that statement, but ignoring that, it is still a fundamental abandonment of principle in favor of political correctness. At that point, in my opinion, the Boy Scouts ceased to exist.

Two years later, in 2015, the board decides to accept openly homosexual adult leaders. This directly invalidates their supreme court case, which was about not accepting openly homosexual adult leaders. If there is a clearer case of abandoning one's moral principles in favor of political correctness, I don't know what it would be.

Two years later, in 2017, the board announces that transgender "boys " (aka girls) would be accepted, and when that "flew," that all girls would be accepted (but only for Cub Scouts, for now). Two things are of note here, which have kept the organization from disbanding (which I believe it will in the next 20 years or so) and which have kept me from walking away.

First off, all of these decisions have been "optional." Each troop has a "chartering organization" that supports it. It is typically a town, or church, or some other group. All of these changes have been made at the national level, but accepting them has been made subject to the approval of the chartering organization, That means that the local Catholic church that charters the local troop can decide "no homosexuals" while the Episcopal church down the street can decide differently for the troop they charter. Doesn't this create disunity? You betcha! What does this mean, legally, for troops? It probably means that somewhere down the line they will have to go back and re-fight the "freedom of association" case, and since they are small and won't have the financial resources to fight it, they will lose.

Secondly, Boy Scouts exists for boys ages 10.5 to 17. When you turn 18 you are done. Announcing a change every two years is analogous to "boiling a frog." Each scout will only see a few changes, and will be gone. Over the next few years I expect to see even more changes, such as allowing atheists, allowing active sexual behavior, supporting abortion, etc. We've already seen that with the Girl Scouts, so it's not as big of a stretch as you might think.

May God help the Boy Scouts of America.

Read More

Miserere Nobis

[See UPDATE at the end of this post]

So Pope Francis comes to America for the first time. How do we welcome him?

President Obama arranges for him to be greeted by Gene Robinson, the first gay Episcopal bishop in the U.S., Mateo Williamson, the transgender head of the LGBT "Catholic" group Dignity USA, Sister Simone Campbell, a pro-choice dissenting nun as well as "married lesbian Catholics" (and of course Joe Biden).

While he is here he visits the UN, where Shakira sings "Imagine" for him (you know, "imagine there's no heaven" because the world would rock if we eliminated religion).

Even during mass, at Madison Square Garden, the lector is "Mo Rocca", an "openly gay Catholic." I have to believe that Cardinal Dolan knew who was serving at mass.

The there are those who put themselves above the Pope in matters of the faith and morals, who mock him for what he didn't do enough of (as if the "left" don't already know he is for family and life - their very choice of guests shows that they know that).

Betrayed from within and without, we slap him in the face at every turn, and what does he do? He smiles and looks past it. You may think he's a fool, and maybe he is, but I think he's trying to live out the Gospel as best he can.

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, dona nobis pacem!

UPDATE: So, because it seems people are misunderstanding this I thought I'd add some clarification.

1. I did not say gays are offensive. What I mean is that constantly bombarding Pope Francis with people who claim to be Catholic but do not believe what Catholics believe is in essence mocking him. To use an analogy, suppose Richard Dawkins was coming to America to a conference on evolution, and the welcoming committee was stacked with people who claimed to be scientists too, but believe in young-earth creationism. Then he was serenaded by someone singing about how evolution is responsible for all the evil in the world. I hope you can see that such a thing would be clearly designed to offend or mock Mr. Dawkins. So too, I think the choice of guests and song were intended to mock Pope Francis.

2. Before criticizing Pope Francis for missing opportunities to tell Congress et. al. how bad they are doing, think about the parable of the prodigal son. Or consider when Jesus calls Levi. It's not very effective to tell people how bad they are unless they already understand you love them. I think Pope Francis' evangelization style is to do just that. Tell people God loves you, and we love you too and want you to be happy. It doesn't matter what you've done, it doesn't matter whether you agree with us or not. We love you and will care for you. Loving someone doesn't mean you agree with them, or that you think they are going down the right path, it means you recognize their dignity as a person made in the image and likeness of God.

3. From an interview with Pope Francis on the plane ride home:

When the plane leaves after a visit, I see the faces of so many people. I get the urge to pray for them and say to the Lord, 'I came here to do something, to do good, perhaps I have done wrong, forgive me but protect all those people who saw me, who thought of what I said, who heard me, even those who have criticized me, all of them,' that is what I feel. Excuse me, it’s a bit personal…you can’t say that in the newspapers.

Read More

Chris Christie has lost my vote

Source: Wikipedia

Well, for the most part Christie has been doing the right things, but he has taken a turn for the worse. In today's news:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie signed into law on Monday legislation that bars licensed therapists from trying to turn gay teenagers straight, though the Republican said in a statement he did so "reluctantly."

and

Christie found middle ground on medical marijuana for children when he agreed Friday to allow growers to cultivate additional strains, and for marijuana to be made in an edible form for chronically ill children. But he would not lift an oversight provision that could require as many as three doctors to sign off on a prescription.

On the first issue, I think most people, even those who feel that one is "born gay" acknowledge that sometimes a person who has been "straight" for some time feels unhappy where they are and "discovers" they have homosexual tendencies. So why is it so hard to imagine that someone who is "gay" could be unhappy and discover they are straight? Why can a therapist help an unhappy straight person to be gay, but be forbidden by law to help an unhappy gay person to be straight? Why is the "discovery" a one way street?

As for parents making this decision for their children, why not? A child does not have any idea of right or wrong, or sexual identity except as it gets it from parents and peers. And in today's society, how many children are "faking" being gay to get the attention they crave? If a particular method of behavior modification is harmful, then ban that method of behavior modification for all behavior, but banning the end, not the means, strikes me as particularly biased against a given outcome.

As for the second, exactly why do we need state laws to put marijuana into the hands of children? There is a procedure in place to get drugs to patients, that's designed to make sure the drugs are effective safe and used properly. If there were a medical benefit to be had, don't you think drug companies would have jumped on it, gotten FDA approval, and be dispensing it already, at great profit? They've had years and years to study it. Now the typical argument is that the drug companies can't experiment with it because it is an illegal substance. Poppycock! So are all the controlled substances out there. They make morphine, opiates, barbiturates, all sorts of things, without having governors sign special laws.

The other argument I've heard is that drug companies know how wonderful marijuana is but are hiding it because there's no profit to be made since people can grow it themselves. Well, that can be said of most plant-derived drugs. What drug companies do is find the active ingredients and put them in an easier to use form, like a pill or inhaler, and work on eliminating side effects, etc. If marijuana was safe, effective, and useful, I'm sure someone would put it in pill form and charge an arm and a leg, and since it is illegal to grow it yourself, they could charge a ton of money for it.

The fact that nobody has gotten the marijuana inhaler or patch or pill or what have you through FDA approval is indication to me that such a drug would not pass muster in terms of safety or effectiveness. The real end game of this bill is to make money by selling tones of marijuana to people who want to use it for recreational purposes and will use medicine as an excuse.

Read More

Silly Senator Cruz

Sen. Cruz (photo from LifeSiteNews)

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network Senator Ted Cruz of Texas (Republican, you might guess) said:

If you look at other nations that have gone down the road towards gay marriage, that’s the next step where it gets enforced. It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages, who speak out and preach biblical truths on marriage, that has been defined elsewhere as hate speech, as inconsistent with the enlightened view of government.”

What a silly statement to make. Of course in America nobody would take action against a Christian pastor for his religious beliefs. It's not like a human rights commissioner in Iowa would ever send death wishes to a Christian pastor and tell him his family should die and burn in hell.

And such a thing is especially ridiculous to say in Texas. I mean, it's not like San Antonio would make a law that people who believe homosexuality is immoral wouldn't be allowed to hold jobs in the city.

No, those things will never happen here.

Read More

Marriage and Drowning

Recently there have been articles about marriage. About why marriage is really only marriage in the Church, about how the Church should distance itself from civil marriage and about how the Church should not distance itself from civil marriage. Here's what I think, by way of analogy.

Consider a lifeguard, protecting swimmers at a beach. So the marriage is designed to support and protect the family. A professionally certified lifeguard is a lifeguard, and is certainly recognized as such. Even f the lifeguard is certified by a different authority we can recognize them as a lifeguard and trust them to protect the swimmers. Even where the certifying authority has different criteria, the aim and duty of the lifeguard is the same, and we are secure in the water, even if we are a little more secure knowing that the certification was the strictest.

Even a person who has had no formal training as a lifeguard can act as one. They may not know the best way to rescue a person, but they understand that their job is to keep the drowning victim's head above water as best they can and get them to shallow water. In fact, even a person who can't swim can act as a lifeguard, if they promise they will throw a life preserver to someone in trouble.

But the key thing here is to understand that the purpose of the lifeguard is to rescue swimmers in trouble. They do not become lifeguards for the purpose of playing frisbee on the beach. Yes, a lifeguard can also play frisbess on the beach sometimes, but someone playing frisbee on the beach is not a lifeguard. To call them one is not only incorrect, it endangers all the swimmers in the water.

Read More

Personally Opposed

It's a Opposite Files triple play! What happens when your job, the law, and your beliefs collide?

OK to force your beliefs on others and disobey law if you are "personally opposed."

Keeps job but lobbies for laws with which he is "personally opposed."

Loses job because she is personally opposed to law

Read More

Evangelical Homosexuality

LifeSiteNews published an article last week, Homosexuality: No Truth without Love, no Love without Truth. The gist of the article is that

The homosexual rights movement understands that the evangelical church is one of the last resistance movements committed to a biblical morality. Because of this, the movement has adopted a strategy of isolating Christian opposition, and forcing change by political action and cultural pressure.

Can we count on evangelicals to remain steadfastly biblical on this issue? Not hardly. Scientific surveys and informal observation reveal that we have experienced a significant loss of conviction among youth and young adults. No moral revolution can succeed without shaping and changing the minds of young people and children.

Now, there's a lot of truth in that. The author blames the erosion of "biblical morality" on a lack of preaching, or catechesis, if you will.

Our churches must teach the basics of biblical morality to Christians who will otherwise never know that the Bible prescribes a model for sexual relationships. Young people must be told the truth about homosexuality–and taught to esteem marriage as God’s intention for human sexual relatedness.

There's only one problem with this, which became apparent in a Facebook discussion. I belong to a Facebook group, "Catholic-Protestant Debate" where the question was raised "is polygamy a sin?"

From a Catholic perspective, it is an open-and-shut case. We know that Jesus said in the synoptic Gospels "But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” St. Paul tells us "Deacons may be married only once and must manage their children and their households well." We know the Church Fathers taught monogamy to be virtuous, and the Church declares this as her teaching. The Catechism says:

2387 The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law." [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive."¹⁸⁰ The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children. 

And yet the Protestants in the group have gone on for days debating one another over interpretations of various passages, pitting Old Testament against New Testament, and arguing the authority of one book of the Bible over another.

So, not to get too far afield, assuming Protestant preachers don't shy away from teaching "Biblical morality" about homosexuality, what would they preach? I went looking for Christian resources on Biblical teaching on homosexuality and found some interesting things. For the record, Romans 1:26-27 reads:

Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

This is far from the only psssage in the Bible condemning homosexuality, but it is one that at first glance appears to be rather clear cut. However, books don't read themselves. I was prepared for the argument I had heard before, that Paul was not a moral authority, only Jesus, and He didn't speak directly about homosexuality. I was not prepared for the arguments I found.

The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance notes the following objections to Paul's writing:

...the persons involved in the orgy were former Christians, and were heterosexual. Romans 1 condemns them because they went against their nature -- their heterosexual orientation -- and engaged in same-gender sexual behavior. By the same reasoning, lesbians and gays who went against their fundamental nature -- their homosexual orientation -- and engaged in opposite-gender sexual behavior would also be sinning.

Wow, so it's a sin for same sex attracted people to have non-homosexual relations? The most ridiculous may be this one

in his book "The Deliverance of God." Campbell suggests that in Romans 1:18-32, Paul was presenting an argument by others that actually oppose his own beliefs.

But wait, there's more! In Pro-gay Arguments about Romans 1, the author notes several more arguments presented to refute the "traditional" reading for Romans 1:

• Paul is culture-bound, either to his Jewish culture or to the surrounding Greco-Roman culture.
• Paul borrows a legalistic list for Romans 1 that he as an anti-legalist does not fully support, just for rhetorical effect (Edwards 1984).
• Paul speaks about perversion (what heterosexually oriented folks do when they commit homosexual acts) instead of true inversion (what homosexually oriented folks do).
• we today have no reason to treat the Bible's condemnation of homosexual acts any differently than we now treat the Bible's endorsement of certain forms of slavery. "It was fine for then, but we know better now. "
• sexual acts that homosexuals do are condoned by evangelicals when done in a heterosexual marriage, so obviously it is not the acts that are at issue.
• arsenokoitai "man-bedding," and malakoi "soft" unclear, words that are usually translated "homosexual."
• Paul is condemning lust, condemning sex-centered exploitation, but not committed caring emotional same-sex relationships.

So, in other words, it's not necessarily a lack of preaching, but also what is being preached that undermines the moral authority of Protestant preachers. Without an authoritative interpreter, the Bible really can be taken to mean anything. Morality becomes a matter of tradition, not revelation.

I know Protestants like to paint a picture like they are all "one" and that Catholics are the outsiders (perhaps not even Christians at all), but the reality is the only thing any two Protestants are guaranteed to have in common is a rejection of Catholicism.

Read More

Wither now?

In the wake of the decision by the Boy Scouts of America to allow openly homosexual boys but not adults, I'm bracing myself for the inevitable questions I will face over the next days and weeks. "What does this mean?"

For those who want to present this as the scouts "ending discrimination", the previous policy was not discriminatory. It does not exclude people on any other basis than behavior. The scouts' membership policy has been challenged time and again. In 1995 Yeaw v. Boy Scouts of America challenged whether it was discriminatory for Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts to refuse to admit girls. The scouts won. In 1998 Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts of America challenged the policy on refusing homosexual leaders. Welsh v. Boy Scouts of AmericaI (1993) and Randall v. Orange County Council (1998)  challenged the policy on atheists. Finally in 2000, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale went all the way to the Supreme Court and settled once and for all that the Boy Scouts of America's policies are not discriminatory and are perfectly legal.

The reason is that scouting is an organization based on a common set of values. It doesn't matter who you are, if you espouse that set of values, you are welcome. If you do not, you are not. The same can be said for basically any organization. A model airplane club is for people who enjoy model airplanes. They are welcome to refuse members who wish to ban model airplanes. You get the idea.

However, the homosexual community wants to present itself not as behavior or beliefs, but of biology. The contention is that being "gay" is like being black, and therefore they cannot be "discriminated against." The lack of any evidence that you are "born gay" and the weight of evidence that you are not are ignored by pretty much both sides in the argument. The group has successfully lobbied from the top down, and controls a disproportionately large amount of money.

Which is where the scouts come in. While an individual scout may be concerned with the values of scouting, at the national level the concern is "how do we pa for that?" It takes a lot of money to be able to run a program that gives millions of boys so many opportunities, and since a large part of funding is controlled by a relatively small number of donors, manipulating donor money becomes a more effective tool than lawsuits to effect policy change.

And so the national BSA committee decided to change the membership policy. Earlier this year, they sent up a "trial balloon" with an announcement that they were "considering" a change to lift the ban on openly homosexual adults but not scouts. The change included a "conscience clause" which allowed individual units (troops) to make a decision to allow or not allow openly homosexual adults in their unit. This was to avoid losing religiously sponsored troops.

There was a large backlash from individual units. The reason is that the scenario presented was the "worst case" in a lot of ways. It would expose each individual unit to the kind of harassment and lawsuits that had plagued the national organization for decades. It raised questions about youth protection. And of course, it violated the moral principles of scouting.

So, over the past months the BSA has lobbied its members heavily on the subject. There were polls which were incredibly one sided scenarios to provide statistics that would favor a change to allow openly homosexual youths. I believe this was the plan all along. It is way easier to get parents who worry that their own son may "come out" to support allowing "gay" youths than is it to get them to approve of having a drag queen for a scout master. And once the ban is lifted for one group, the other will surely be allowed. After all, you can't tell little Johnny it's OK to sleep with boys, but his dad can't be involved in scouting because...well, why exactly?

And so we get to where we are now. The numbers looked like there was grass roots support, the media was beating on the issue regularly, and frankly a lot of people who objected the first go round were ignored on the revised policy change proposal. No, I am not surprised that the BSA lifted the ban on "gay" scouts - anybody who is surprised is naive. When the first "proposal" was announced it was inevitable.

So what does this mean to me? In answering that I'd like to point out the statement made by the BSA [emphasis mine]:

Today, following this review, the most comprehensive listening exercise in Scouting's history the approximate 1,400 voting members of the Boy Scouts of America's National Council approved a resolution to remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone. The resolution also reinforces that Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting. A change to the current membership policy for adult leaders was not under consideration; thus, the policy for adults remains in place. The BSA thanks all the national voting members who participated in this process and vote.

What does he think "openly gay" means, if it does not include sexual conduct? Does he mean "same sex attracted?" But that's different from being "openly gay." Is it OK for a boy to be "dating" other boys, as long as he doesn't go past first base? Third base? Are scout leaders then supposed to inquire about the scout's sexual lives? "Johnny, did you ever touch a girl's breasts?" The whole notion of allowing boys who espouse a certain sexual conduct but saying sexual conduct is not allowed is absurd.

This may seem like I'm diving into minutia, but it can and will be important when considering eagle scouts. The rank of eagle scout is the highest rank in the BSA, and to earn it a boy has to meet certain criteria, which involve living up to the scout oath and law. First off, the current scout oath involves promising to remain "morally straight," which is problematic given the change. I expect the oath to be amended. But even without that, the scout must adhere to moral principles. I am aware of cases where a boy has completed all the requirements for eagle scout but was denied the rank because he was discourteous to someone.

That's a pretty high bar to clear. And the next time a boy is denied eagle because of sexual conduct, and that sexual conduct is homosexual conduct, you can bet the policy will be revised again. And again, and again. There's a story attributed to either George Bernard Shaw or more popularly WInston Churchill that goes something like this:

Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"
Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "
Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!"
Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”

Now that we've established that the BSA's principles are for sale, it's just a matter of price. And homosexuals aren't the only group looking to change BSA principles to match theirs. I predict turmoil and strife, and an ultimate watering down of the twelve points of scouting.

So, what to do? I could resign my position, and pull my sons out of scouting. I'm sure a lot of people will be doing that. But what would tat accomplish? There are still many good things about scouting that we can't get from another organization. leaving would be "giving up" all that we've done - running away from the bullies. On the other hand, is staying being hypocritical? In spite of knowing this was coming I haven't reached a decision, mostly because it was unclear exactly what changes would be made. For instance, would there be a "conscience clause" similar to what was in the original policy proposal.

The change doesn't go into effect until January 1, 2014, so there is time to think and pray about this, and come to a conclusion. Perhaps the organization will split over the issue, like the Anglican Church. Or perhaps a splinter organization will form, like the American Heritage Girls did in the case of the Girls Scouts abandoning their values. One thing that is especially troubling to me is that I would like to remain a leader, since I would like to help the boys in our troop regardless of what the policy is, yet if I were personally faced with an "openly gay" scout I could not in good conscience be involved in award that would affirm his moral behavior, and so I could not remain a leader.

So what does this mean? I don't know yet, but I could use your prayers, as can the entire BSA.

UPDATE: The NCCS (National Committee on Catholic Scouting) seems to have a stance similar to mine (they must be pretty smart ;-) ):

Today, the voting members of the BSA voted to change the membership standards for its youth members. The BSA proposed in its resolution that "no youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone." Its membership standards for adult leaders remain unchanged.

The Catholic Church teaches that people who experience a homosexual inclination or a same sex attraction are to be treated with respect recognizing the dignity of all persons. The Church's teaching is clear that engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage is immoral. Individuals who are open and avowed homosexuals promoting and engaging in homosexual conduct are not living lives consistent with Catholic teaching.

Since the change in policy will not take effect until January 1, 2014, the National Catholic Committee on Scouting has adequate time to study its effects. The NCCS will determine how it may impact Catholic chartered Scout units and activities. In doing so, we will work within the teachings of our Catholic Faith and with the various local bishops and their diocesan scouting committees.

Read More