Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
John-in-KC

Policy Statement From The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod On Scouting

Recommended Posts

As a devote and God fearing Catholic, the Bishop of Bismark North Dakota reacted emotionally and too much in-the-moment.  I fear this decision is a slap in the face of many of his congregation.  

Or he reacted Biblically rather than emotionally with 8 years of seminary education to back him up and as a prophet of God rather than an agent of political agendas and posturing did the right thing for this congregations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or he reacted Biblically rather than emotionally with 8 years of seminary education to back him up and as a prophet of God rather than an agent of political agendas and posturing did the right thing for this congregations.

 

Or whatever.  Thank you for putting your two cents in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a devote and God fearing Catholic, the Bishop of Bismark North Dakota reacted emotionally and too much in-the-moment.  

 

He acted in a reactionary way instead of a thoughtful way.  Too much change in too short a time.  

 

I fear this decision is a slap in the face of many of his congregation.  

 

Really? All I heard this past Sunday (and at the meeting Monday night) was how the congregation disagreed with BSA and those pushing for the change and how THEY were the ones not considering the boys, but rather considering a small minority of people instead. Our parish seems behind the unit and am hoping the diocese is too. The plea from the church (I have heard today) has already gone out to the diocese stand firm on our membership position and for the church to support our unit....and not to see this as a chance to pop BSA in the nose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or whatever.  Thank you for putting your two cents in.

Not my 2-cents worth,

 

BSA's decision has polarized a lot of faith-based CO's.  If one is going to look at this in a mature manner, one needs to see both sides of the issue and "A Scout is Reverent" honor the beliefs of both sides.  Otherwise, one is most likely going to go off half-cocked emotionally with no forethought on what it does to others and their beliefs.

 

And it is common knowledge that the American branch of Catholicism has set its own agenda when it comes to birth control and marriage irregardless of what the faith policy of the Holy See has indicated.  So as a devoted and God-fearing person, one had better fully understand what Holy Scripture says and take an inventory of how devoted and God-fearing one really is before lashing out at another's faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 The most interesting to me is that Jewish committee has decided to know recommend scouting.  Previously, they were discouraging it top their congregations.

 

 

 

The Jewish Committee is part of the BSA.  They never stopped recommending Scouting to congregations, it's their job.  The problem is that the Reform denomination (the largest) has had an outright condemnation statement against the BSA since 2001.  There are some remaining Reform-chartered units where the congregation kept the unit (or rarely, started a new unit) because of a long-standing relationship, to be a voice for change from within, or because they thought scouting's benefits outweighed the cons.  The Conservative movement (fairly liberal, but slightly more politically conservative, much more liturgically conservative than Reform) may not have had an explicit condemnation but congregations seemed hostile to new unit starts.

 

What Bruce's National JCoS email is suggesting is that "our troubles are over!  Hit the recruiting trail hard!"  There have been no retraction statements yet (and they may balk at the local option vs full inclusion) but things look promising. 

 

--00Eagle, former Council Jewish Chairman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose the Bishop of Bismark was reacting biblically when he tried to obstruct an investigation in to charges of sexual abuse of two girls by a priest while he was a monsignor at the Rockford, Illinois diocese.  If he wants to make it the policy of the Bismark diocese (which pretty much covers the entire western half of North Dakota) that no part of the diocese can sponsor Scout units, then that's his prerogative, but a man that insists that canonical law supersedes state law in child sexual abuse investigations should be very careful about judging other people and organizations on morality issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said bishops are any less a sinner than anyone else?  Or a prophet either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose the Bishop of Bismark was reacting biblically when he tried to obstruct an investigation in to charges of sexual abuse of two girls by a priest while he was a monsignor at the Rockford, Illinois diocese.  If he wants to make it the policy of the Bismark diocese (which pretty much covers the entire western half of North Dakota) that no part of the diocese can sponsor Scout units, then that's his prerogative, but a man that insists that canonical law supersedes state law in child sexual abuse investigations should be very careful about judging other people and organizations on morality issues.

 

Because lawyers never argue jurisdiction or which case law (or military law, or canon law) takes precedent, right?

 

When you read his brief on the subject it was not based on emotion or an attempt to cover anything, but based on legal grounds. How many times have we seen DAs or judges make similar decisions based on case law or precedent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no legal grounds for canon law to trump secular law in the case of child abuse and in fact, it's a violation of canon law not to adhere to the superiority of secular law in such cases, which he would have known as he was making his arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no legal grounds for canon law to trump secular law in the case of child abuse and in fact, it's a violation of canon law not to adhere to the superiority of secular law in such cases, which he would have known as he was making his arguments.

 

Where's that written?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to "second" what 00Eagle said about the National Jewish Committee on Scouting. They never "not recommended" Scouting. I am fairly certain they did pass a resolution at some point advocating a change in policy, but then I am pretty sure my council did as well. They were all part of Scouting at all times. Dis-affiliation or non-affiliation with the BSA was recommended, to my knowledge, by organizations within the Reform movement, but it has always been up to each congregation to decide what to do. Like the head of the National Jewish Committee, I am hopeful that this decision will help broaden the base of CO's among Jewish congregations and other organizations. (And, I would add, new-Jewish organizations as well.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowhere in the Canon Law of the Catholic Church does it acknowledge any "superiority" of secular laws. 

 

Superiority is referred to in the Superiority Clause of the U.S. Constitution,  but that only refers to the relationship between federal and state courts.   

 

To the best of my knowledge, the U.S.  legal system doesn't acknowledge, recognize, enforce, or cite the laws of any religion.  Nor should it.

 

Canon Law, however, does recognize the need for secular laws, and instructs Catholics to obey all just secular laws.  It does not say that secular laws trump Canon Law.
 

Recently, after the SCOTUS gay marriage ruling, the Catholic Bishops released a statement criticizing the court decision, saying that the institution of marriage is ordained by God and no government or court has any authority to change it.

 

Does this sound to you like the Catholic Church recognizes "superiority" by secular courts?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowhere in the Canon Law of the Catholic Church does it acknowledge any "superiority" of secular laws. 

 

Superiority is referred to in the Superiority Clause of the U.S. Constitution,  but that only refers to the relationship between federal and state courts.   

 

To the best of my knowledge, the U.S.  legal system doesn't acknowledge, recognize, enforce, or cite the laws of any religion.  Nor should it.

 

Canon Law, however, does recognize the need for secular laws, and instructs Catholics to obey all just secular laws.  It does not say that secular laws trump Canon Law.

 

Recently, after the SCOTUS gay marriage ruling, the Catholic Bishops released a statement criticizing the court decision, saying that the institution of marriage is ordained by God and no government or court has any authority to change it.

 

Does this sound to you like the Catholic Church recognizes "superiority" by secular courts?

 

I don't believe that this "policy" is any different than any other religion either.  The government have their laws and the religions have theirs.  It is only when one tries to mix the two are there problems.  The SCOTUS can say anything it wishes when it comes to marriage, but just because it says so, doesn't make it a reality for the populace.

 

With the aging of our society and all the legal hassles of inheritances, Social Security, financial trusts, etc. there are an increasing number of couples getting a religious marriage only and foregoing the civil part of it.  On the other hand doing a civil only marriage is still common and can be done by any two people.  That's what SCOTUS said.  So it makes no never mind what the government does and what the religious community does.  We have a separation between the two that the government simply hasn't figured out after 200+ years.  When the government tries to force a religious community to do a religious marriage for someone they do not deem appropriate is where the government needs to seriously mind it's own business and butt out.  

 

The separation between Church and State is meant to protect both sides, not just the State.

 

Maybe BSA ought to pay attention to this so they will learn something about how this works as well.

Edited by Stosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read very little of canon law, I doubt most of us have so I relied on a statement from Charles Wilson, executive director of the St. Joseph Foundation which is the American Catholic Church's scholarly think tank on canon law who said that, and these are his words:

 

"According to canon law itself, the jurisdiction of civil courts is paramount - it's not just that the Church defers to civil law, it adopts civil law as its own."

 

So according to the Catholic Church's own canon law think tank, not only does the church put civil law ahead of canon law, it also adopts civil law within canon law and on top of that is elevates civil courts to the highest jurisdiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So according to the Catholic Church's own canon law think tank, not only does the church put civil law ahead of canon law, it also adopts civil law within canon law and on top of that is elevates civil courts to the highest jurisdiction.

Yes, in matters that are strictly civil the Church recognizes the jurisdiction of the civil courts. But that doesn't mean that civil law is superior to the Church's law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×