Showing posts with label pc nonsense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pc nonsense. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Scouting Goes Rogue: Part 1 (Introduction)

Earlier this year, we reported on the decision of the Boy Scouts of America to revise its membership policy with respect to youth members and sexual orientation. The relevant section of the policy up to this time, one that was supported by the 2000 Supreme Court decision in Boy Scouts of America v Dale, is as follows:

Youth membership in the Boy Scouts of America is open to all who meet the membership requirements. Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, and Varsity Scouting are for boys. Venturing is for young men and young women. (Updated March 15)

The adult applicant must possess the moral, educational, and emotional qualities that the Boy Scouts of America deems necessary to afford positive leadership to youth. The applicant must also be the correct age, subscribe to the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle, and abide by the Scout Oath or Promise, and the Scout Law.

While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.

The new policy, voted on at the National Meeting this past May, effective the beginning of next year, is as follows:

Membership in any program of the Boy Scouts of America requires the youth member to (a) subscribe to and abide by the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law, (b) subscribe to and abide by the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and (c) demonstrate behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others and is consistent at all times with the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.

In the world of Catholic new media, there has been discussion on this topic at one time or another this past year, as would-be pundits advise Catholic families on what they should or should not do. They draw their conclusions with little in the way of hard evidence, that continued association with the BSA, as of the 23rd of May last, is definitive cooperation with an objective moral evil. Or something.

As poorly thought out as this is, at least it heads in the right direction. What's more, it pales in comparison to the vascilating stance taken by the National Catholic Committee on Scouting.

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.

Now, contrast this relatively innocuous position with the official statement by Bishop Paul Loverde of Arlington, Virginia, released last May in the wake of the BSA decision.

As an organization founded on character and leadership, it is highly disappointing to see the Boy Scouts of America succumb to external pressures and political causes at the cost of its moral integrity. Additionally, it seems clear that the result of this policy change will likely not bring harmony, but rather continuing controversy, policy fights, and discord.

The above has probably been the most forthright statement to date by any Catholic bishop on the issue.

We hear a lot about how people with same-sex attraction (and the assumption is that "sexual orientation" is limited to that issue) should be treated "with respect recognizing the dignity of all persons." The reality is, that this is not what the Church teaches on homosxuality; it is what the Church teaches on everything! “In omnia, caritas.” In all things, charity. Our mother the Church does not call us to condemnation, but to conversion. She wants us to unite with the Bridegroom, and be happy with Him forever in Heaven. Hers is a message of love, not of hate. What appears at a distance to be a bitter pill, is simply the Bread of Life.

Meanwhile, we hear little from the NCCS on how unnatural sexual proclivities are "an objective disorder," and are an inclination towards "an objective moral evil." That is most assuredly what the Church teaches on homosexuality. A genuine teaching moment has been reduced to a public relations campaign, trying to assure everybody that we promise to be nice, please don't hurt us. As a result, there is little in the way of authoritative direction. And so, at the local level, pastors decide not to sponsor Boy Scout troops at the end of the year (often without even discerning their own bishop's position, as though the Church operates on a congregational polity), parents pull their kids out of Scouting, in some cases as they are about to be eligible for the Eagle Award -- all this without guidance, without an alternative, without much of anything.

To limit the concern of Church officials to merely explicit sexual activity is morally problematic in itself, not so much for what it says, as for what it does not say. Dr Denise Hunnell is a wife and mother with a long history of involvement in Boy Scouting. Not content to rest on those laurels, she brings up the obvious:

What constitutes sexual conduct? It would be normal for a high school age Boy Scout to post pictures on Facebook of his girlfriend. He might be seen holding hands with her. He might even be seen giving her a kiss. None of this would be considered as inappropriate sexual behavior. Now consider the Boy Scout with a same-sex attraction. Would it also be acceptable for him to hold hands and kiss his boyfriend? This policy opens the door to a Clintonian parsing of the definition of sexual relations. Will the Scout invite his boyfriend to the Court of Honor to share in the celebration of his Scouting achievements? Will other Scouts and their parents be expected to look upon this behavior with tolerance and acceptance? For Catholics, that would be impossible.

Unfortunately, the tepid response that is evident in the NCCS position has been the extent of intellectual rigor among so many Catholic leaders involved in Scouting until now. I have spoken to a number of such leaders at the local level. The responses, including to such as the above, are no less depressing.

A local commissioner who liaises with a Catholic unit: "I don't see the difference here, David."

A decorated Scout leader and recipient of a religious award for his service to Catholic scouting: "I don't have a dog in this hunt."

The scoutmaster of a Troop sponsored by a Catholic parish: "It's above my pay grade."

No kidding. Grown men actually say this stuff.

In the roughly three months this past spring, during what the BSA referred to as a "family discussion," little more than a staged exercise of consultation as prelude to a foregone conclusion, was like a bad remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers once the "pod people" started taking over. I heard more inane and ill-formed observations in two or three months from seasoned and otherwise-sensible veterans of Scouting, than I had in the nine years I had been back in uniform.

The good Doctor, on the other hand, is quite correct to imply elsewhere in her treatise, that the leadership of the NCCS has been naive in its approach to the subject. Even children who prepare for First Communion are taught (or should be taught) the Act of Contrition, that they may make a proper Confession, in which they promise "to sin no more, to avoid the near occasion of sin, to do penance, and to amend my life ..." In other words, it is not enough to avoid sin, but also to avoid those situations which invariably lead to sin. It is what the Jews refer to as "building a wall around Torah." The purpose of the wall (or the fence, depending on your translation) is not only to keep something in, but to keep something else out. To put it another way, in the words of Father Peter Stravinskas: "If you want to avoid the unthinkable, you draw the lines well in advance." Those among the Catholic leadership who advise the BSA do not appear to see this as a problem, which is not about a deficiency in theology, but a more basic level of catechesis -- from bishops, no less, and the intellectual dwarfs who do their bidding!

Over the next few weeks at this time, man with black hat will be laying out the new landscape of the scouting movement in the United States, particularly as it has emerged in the last year.

Part 2 of this series will introduce the reader to what are referred to as the "aims and methods of Scouting," and will give some background on the history of so-called "independent scouting." It will provide a brief glance at how a traditional scouting program would look and operate, and what it would provide, based upon the writings of Lord Baden Powell of Gilwell, the father of the scouting movement, and his 1907 Brownsea Island experiment.

With Part 2 as a basis for comparison, Parts 3, 4, and 5 will each present a possible alternative to the Boy Scouts of America (in the form of Trail Life USA, Troops of Saint George, and the Federation of North American Explorers, respectively). Finally, Part 6 will show why remaining with the Boy Scouts of America, all else notwithstanding, may or may not still be the best alternative over the long haul.

If you are a mother or father of a Catholic household with boys in Scouting, you want to read this series.

If you are a parish or diocesan youth minister, or a Catholic priest whose parish has sponsored a Scout Troop, and you want to know what to do next (while waiting for the diocesan youth ministry office to get it together), you want to read this series.

If you are with a diocesan youth ministry office, or a diocesan Scouting chaplaincy, and are tired of waiting for said dicastery to get it together on this subject, you want to read this series.

Concern is raised in this venue over the limiting of the problem to explicit sexual engagement, when the problem is really broader than that. Most people who think beyond the ends of their noses know, that nobody ever joins Boy Scouting with the expectation of getting laid. (There, I said it.) We must conclude, therefore, that there is more to this issue than the one-dimensional approach employed up to now.

If you agree (or if you don't, and would dare this writer to prove otherwise), you want to read this series.

(NOTE: If you are a parish priest, and need to know a few things sooner rather than later, you know where to find me.)

The thing is, many Catholics with boys in Scouting are willing to listen to anybody with enough initials after his or her name, or enough visibility in Catholic new media, who would accuse them of leading their child down the road to perdition had they not burned his uniform sometime after May 23rd, without even suggesting a viable option. (By "viable," I refer to concept of scouting as described above, as opposed to a Catholic boys club whose members all wear the same polo shirts and pray the Rosary around the campfire.) Maybe it's about time we all brought the conversation up a notch, don't you think?

Or don't you? Stay tuned ...
 

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Women and Men

I knew that one day, if this venue were to continue for long enough, I'd be writing on a subject like this. But what could I say that would add to the conversation, that has not been already -- lately?

I subscribe to a number of sites through Facebook, if only for personal amusement. One of them is Upworthy, devoted to progressive and liberal causes. Some of them are quite worthy. Most ... eh, not so much. Occasionally, they present one that leaves a great deal to be desired. This may be one of them.

Step 1: Search Google for things such as "Women shouldn't" or "Women can't."

Step 2: Check out the auto-complete suggestions.

The results in these UN Women advertisements are real, and many online commenters have said the results are the same or very similar around the world.

The world's most popular search engine has shown us what the world really thinks of women.

And so, following a most scientific method, according to the United Nations (with the help of Google), this is what the world thinks.

women cannot
women cannot drive
women cannot be bishops
women cannot be trusted
women cannot speak in church

There are three other illustrations, so that the following are covered:

women shouldn't
women shouldn't have rights
women shouldn't vote
women shouldn't work
women shouldn't box

women should
women should stay at home
women should be slaves
women should be in the kitchen
women should not speak in church

women need to
women need to be put in their place
women need to know their place
women need to be controlled
women need to be disciplined

Now, some of these issues are genuine injustices. And, noting that of the four illustrations in the series representing the women of varying races of the world, the last one appears to be wearing traditional Muslim garb, including the "hijab," a veil that covers the head and chest, worn by females beyond the age of puberty in the presence of adult males. It is also worth noting that a number of regimes that impose such restrictions on women, also persecute Christians, even granting to some the crown of martyrdom, and such draconian rulers are enjoying a particularly favorable relationship with the current administration. (To be fair, some have for many years, but especially so at present.)

It goes to show that, yes, there are some genuine injustices against women in the world, at a time when the Holy Father is most attentive to the role of women in the Church (which is not the same thing as giving them titles, but ... that's another story).

But then I thought, hey, why not have a little fun with this? So, I did the same thing on Google -- you guessed it -- for men! Here now are the results of the (equally scientific) search on Google, for the top four items of the following:

men cannot
men cannot be feminists
men cannot be trusted
men cannot get hit from women
men cannot pick up chair

Actually, that last one is true. If you can stand watching this for nine minutes (as over 107,000 have already tried), you can find our for yourself that men really cannot do this, but women can. Don't ask me why.

men shouldn't
men shouldn't wear shorts
men shouldn't wear flip-flops
men shouldn't marry
men shouldn't hit women

Nor should women hit men. It happened to me once, completely unprovoked, but that's another story.

men should
men should die
men should always pray
men should pursue women
men should not wear makeup

Before our fourth item, they had "men should not marry," but we covered that already.

men need to
men need to feel needed
men need to ejaculate
men need to cheat
men need to be men

Well, that one sure ran the gamut. And finally, yours truly cannot resist the urge to add a few of his own.

men cannot bear children
men shouldn't get in the lifeboats before women and children
men should pay for dates (number six on Google's list, actually)
men need to love their wives, and lay down their lives for them

We are who we are because God made us that way. He makes men to be men, and women to be women. He does not make men who should have been made into women, or women who should have been made into men. God does not make mistakes. This means that if a man or a woman believes otherwise, and we hear so often these days of those who do, they are IN ERROR -- don't you think?

Or don't you?
 

Tuesday, February 05, 2013

Scouting’s Culture War

Recently, in both the national news, and among those active in Boy Scouting, the following announcement has fermented waves of discussion and dissention.

For more than 100 years, Scouting’s focus has been on working together to deliver the nation’s foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training. Scouting has always been in an ongoing dialogue with the Scouting family to determine what is in the best interest of the organization and the young people we serve.

Currently, the BSA is discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation. This would mean there would no longer be any national policy regarding sexual orientation, and the chartered organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with each organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs. BSA members and parents would be able to choose a local unit that best meets the needs of their families.

The policy change under discussion would allow the religious, civic, or educational organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting to determine how to address this issue. The Boy Scouts would not, under any circumstances, dictate a position to units, members, or parents. Under this proposed policy, the BSA would not require any chartered organization to act in ways inconsistent with that organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs.

The BSA National Executive Board is meeting this week at the national headquarters in Irving, Texas (located between Dallas and Fort Worth). A decision regarding the aforementioned is expected by Wednesday or Thursday. This writer most certainly has an opinion on the subject, one that is borne not only out of an awareness of this aspect of the "culture wars," but based on years of experience in the Scouting program, both as a youth and as an adult. This includes extensive awareness of the issues at hand, their critical background, and recent history. Research is already in progress, and an opinion piece is coming very soon.

Stay tuned ...
 

Saturday, January 05, 2013

Christ-Mass: Day 12 (St Telesphorus/St John Neumann)

“On the twelfth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me, twelve drummers drumming ...”

In the traditional Roman calendar, Mother Church remembers the man elected Bishop of Rome in 126, and martyred ten years later. The reformed Roman calendar honors the native of Bohemia who was appointed Bishop of Philadelphia in the mid-19th century, and who was a key figure in spreading the Faith to an ever-expanding United States of America.

Meanwhile, I found something I wrote on this day five years ago:

When I was growing up in a small town in Ohio, they had a unique way of disposing of used Christmas trees. They'd take them to some field at the edge of town, stack them in a big pile, and commemorate "Twelfth Night" with the lighting of a bonfire dubbed the "yule log." Of course, my parents didn't go for that sort of ribaldry, so I never actually saw it happen ...

These days, I imagine people would have a hard time penciling it in between trips to soccer practice and PTA meetings. Besides, reading this week's edition of the old hometown paper, I have learned that the town has yielded to other priorities, courtesy of the county's Office of Environmental Quality: "Many recycled trees are sent through a wood chipper and are used as mulch."

Now that kills the holiday magic right there. Then again, why celebrate the gifts of the season, when you can spend the rest of the year spreading them on your lawn or walking all over them?

Tomorrow night at Chez Alexandre, we will step out on to the porch and face the entrance. With a piece of chalk, the following will be inscribed over the door ...

20  +  C  +  M  +  B  +  13

...while saying these words out loud: "Christus Mansionem Benedicat! ... May Christ this dwelling bless!" The initials also stand for the names which tradition ascribes to the three wise men -- Caspar, Melchoir, and Balthasar.

Details tomorrow. Until then, stay tuned ...
 

Friday, October 05, 2012

FAMW: Free-Range Kids

"If you google 'America's worst mom,' I'm there for 68 pages," says Lenore Skenazy, proprietor of the controversial parenting site Free-Range Kids, a book of the same title, and a syndicated columnist for Creators. Since 2009, Skenazy has been waging a non-stop battle against helicopter parents, nanny-state nuisances, and a media consumed by scare stories about everything from child abduction to food additives to sports injuries.

One might suppose that you raise free-range kids for the same reason as raising free-range chickens; if you keep pan-feeding them, they forget how to scratch. Something to think about for this week's mildly-serious-yet-oddly-humorous Friday Afternoon Moment of Whimsy.

And in case you're asking, no, Jon Stewart wasn't all that funny this week. Happens to the best of them.
 

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Kermit Was Right

It's not easy being green.

The following was stolen from my personal favorite "singing sergeant," Janice Reksten Carl, who got it from laketravis.com, via Facebook. It is reproduced here without permission or shame.

+    +    +

Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman, that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.

The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days."

The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."

She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were truely recycled.

But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags, that we reused for numerous things, most memorable besides household garbage bags, was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our schoolbooks. This was to ensure that public property, (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.

But too bad we didn't do the green thing back then.

We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throwaway kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

But that young lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But we didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart@$$ young person.

We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

+    +    +

It has been reported that reusable grocery bags, the kind they now sell at supermarkets as part of the usual "going green" stunt, are at risk for carrying food-borne diseases if they are not washed every day.

And for the record, I prefer my brown paper bags with handles. I've also been known to wrap birthday gifts with leftover Sunday comics. After all, using Christmas wrapping would just be wrong.