Jump to content

Catholics turn


Recommended Posts

I suppose they "could" but if that was the case, hopefully the NCCS would have said so.

I asked why the Catholics are not being as draconian as the UMC....the response was "Because we are not Methodists"  😁

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I would maintain that the saddest part of this issue is and will remain the victimization of our youth, and the loss of innocence and mental well-being they suffered and continue to suffer. While I lo

Bay-Lakes Council spent a long time early in the year and couldn’t come to terms. No units will be chartered by the Green Bay diocese. 

There are probably a lot of reasons for that including that as one of the largest CO groups, UMC were affected by a significant number of lawsuits and claims. Unlike the Catholic church, though, which

The saddest part of this continuing issue is that if we simply fixed the legal system so as to not have overly zealous and greedy saw suits people could still have protection with reasonable cost and some type of fair and balanced guidelines.  The expectation that there is an absolute ability to keep all bad actors out of Scouting or any other group is not feasible.  And, when those individuals do get past barriers, for whatever reason, the idea that anyone that has ever spoken to or touched them, or furnished a place to meet, and so on is ridiculous and should not be a reason to sue.  Just my view, and if you do not agree, please do not get rude.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, skeptic said:

The saddest part of this continuing issue is that if we simply fixed the legal system so as to not have overly zealous and greedy saw suits people could still have protection with reasonable cost and some type of fair and balanced guidelines.  The expectation that there is an absolute ability to keep all bad actors out of Scouting or any other group is not feasible.  And, when those individuals do get past barriers, for whatever reason, the idea that anyone that has ever spoken to or touched them, or furnished a place to meet, and so on is ridiculous and should not be a reason to sue.  Just my view, and if you do not agree, please do not get rude.

I would maintain that the saddest part of this issue is and will remain the victimization of our youth, and the loss of innocence and mental well-being they suffered and continue to suffer. While I love Scouting, our worst case is that we lose entirely a fantastic youth organization, and that is not likely. And if it happens I am certain the void will be filled. The victims are already facing their worst case scenario. I don't mean to diminish your view of the legal system; tort reform is a conversation to be had. But in this situation, for me, all other pain takes a backseat to the victims.

  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And I ahve never denied that the abuse should not have happened, if possible, and that some foolish or something people made major poor decisions in regard to the known or reported cases.  We also need to recognize the other parties making poor decisions, or in some cases what they viewed as protective decisions.  Bsa was and is not the only one, and suggesting they are is simply foolish.  One case is too many.   We need to continue to strengthen barriers, but also NOT simply write off the huge benefits of Scouting.  It is a bit ironic that West was chosen partly due to his efforts for improving youth fafety in society.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skeptic said:

The saddest part of this continuing issue is that if we simply fixed the legal system so as to not have overly zealous and greedy saw suits people could still have protection with reasonable cost and some type of fair and balanced guidelines.  The expectation that there is an absolute ability to keep all bad actors out of Scouting or any other group is not feasible.  And, when those individuals do get past barriers, for whatever reason, the idea that anyone that has ever spoken to or touched them, or furnished a place to meet, and so on is ridiculous and should not be a reason to sue.  Just my view, and if you do not agree, please do not get rude.

You seem to be suggesting that individual or victims' rights to sue should be curtailed and greater protections be given to institutions such as the BSA from being sued based on the fact that the BSA is not the only organization that has a CSA issue.

 

53 minutes ago, skeptic said:

And I ahve never denied that the abuse should not have happened, if possible, and that some foolish or something people made major poor decisions in regard to the known or reported cases.  We also need to recognize the other parties making poor decisions, or in some cases what they viewed as protective decisions.  Bsa was and is not the only one, and suggesting they are is simply foolish.  One case is too many.   We need to continue to strengthen barriers, but also NOT simply write off the huge benefits of Scouting.  It is a bit ironic that West was chosen partly due to his efforts for improving youth fafety in society.

 

Not denying the fact that abuse should not have happened is not a defense against trying to minimalize the scope of the abuse, amount of suffering, and how hard BSA has fought survivors to be able to recover damages. 

The same legal system that you claim is bad to BSA is being and has been used by BSA to avoid fair compensation to survivors. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, ScouterSD said:

In reading the Catholic recommendation a few items stand out.  

  • USCCB strongly recommends that diocesan counsel consult local BSA councils and insurance carriers before approving the use of any agreements with the BSA.
  • Catholic Mutual is recommending either the Charter Agreement, as risk is mitigated by the by the ability to control leadership, program, and safe environment standards, or dissociate from the hosting of BSA Units in any form, eliminating the risk altogether.

The first bullet point should apply to all chartering organizations. The bankruptcy showed all the chartering organization to get it in writing, not just take the word of the BSA.

However, the largest Catholic insurance company in bullet two, is recommending a Charter Agreement or nothing else...  interesting.  Does the insurance company feel that a facility usage or affiliate agreement does not protect the Church?   Sounds 100% opposite to the UMC thinking.

Reading a bit more into the thought process, there is the notion that if it is a charter agreement, the church has greater control over who the leaders are and the ideology of what is taught to the youth.  There are some units out there who use Scouting to advance social ideologies that have nothing to do with Scouting and run contrary to church teachings.  Chartering a unit ensures more control over the adults.  A facilities use agreement gives zero control.  Being sued is not the only thing the church is worried about.  The safety of the kids in paramount.  The church would have no say in the adult leadership, nor would they be required to attend the Safe Environment Training.  SET makes YPT look like a joke.  Better to have control or not have such an entity around.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DeaconLance said:

Not true.  The USCCB could decide to vote and adopt a national policy that each bishop would be obliged to implement.  Not sure what it would take for that to happen though.

I'm not sure that Scouting would quite rise to the level of a vital issue confronting the Church and society.  The closest is the Committee on Protection of Children and Young People.  Seems like the best way to do that is to charter the unit and select leaders that you can control.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2022 at 8:15 PM, DeaconLance said:

Not true.  The USCCB could decide to vote and adopt a national policy that each bishop would be obliged to implement.  Not sure what it would take for that to happen though.

I'm willing to be corrected, but I don't think the USCCB can do that. I'm pretty sure every Bishop and Archbishop is sovereign within their diocese on issues like this. It isn't a matter of doctrine or church teaching. It would be like if the USSCB tried to make a binding decision that every diocese needed to have a policy about parish youth basketball leagues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2022 at 9:17 PM, Sentinel947 said:

I'm willing to be corrected, but I don't think the USCCB can do that. I'm pretty sure every Bishop and Archbishop is sovereign within their diocese on issues like this. It isn't a matter of doctrine or church teaching. It would be like if the USSCB tried to make a binding decision that every diocese needed to have a policy about parish youth basketball leagues.

Since it involves youth protection and the Church is self-insured I think they could if the lawyers and underwriters were recommending it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that if the USSCB could/wanted to eliminate Catholic scouting they would have done so already but I believe the Catholic Church supports scouting even if a few dioceses and other individual Pastors do not.   Not all Catholic. Churches have the wherewithal to have scouting or even youth groups due to their size and volunteer populations.

 

JMHO

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2022 at 8:10 PM, DeaconLance said:

Since it involves youth protection and the Church is self-insured I think they could if the lawyers and underwriters were recommending it.

Nope, Sentinel is correct, Bishops answer only to the Pope, or higher.  The USCCB can vote on recommended actions, and a whole lot of pressure would be brought to bare on any diocese dissenting.  For that reason it is only really important matters that reach that kind of action.  But in the end, the Bishop who heads the diocese runs the diocese as they will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2022 at 11:37 PM, T2Eagle said:

Nope, Sentinel is correct, Bishops answer only to the Pope, or higher.  The USCCB can vote on recommended actions, and a whole lot of pressure would be brought to bare on any diocese dissenting.  For that reason it is only really important matters that reach that kind of action.  But in the end, the Bishop who heads the diocese runs the diocese as they will.

Not true.  The bishops are answerable to their metropolitans and conferences in a limited fashion and are also bound by canon law and all nations have complimentary canons called particular law.  If they can have particular law on leasing property (they do) they can have one on sponsoring units.  Would they do it?  Unlikely, unless more lawsuits crop up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from the USCCB website:  

 

Our mission is to support the ministry of bishops with an emphasis on evangelization, by which the bishops exercise in a communal and collegial manner certain pastoral functions entrusted to them by the Lord Jesus of sanctifying, teaching, and governing (see Lumen gentium, no. 21).

 

 

Our purposes under civil law are:

  • to unify, coordinate, encourage, promote and carry on Catholic activities in the United States;
  • to organize and conduct religious, charitable and social welfare work at home and abroad;
  • to aid in education;
  • to care for immigrants;
  • and generally to enter into and promote by education, publication and direction the objects of its being.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So is this:

The Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1983 contains eighty-four canons that call for or permit legislative action by the episcopal conference. Since that time the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (designated the National Conference of Catholic Bishops prior to July 1, 2001) has taken action on twenty-nine canons, thereby establishing particular legislation for the dioceses of the United States.

This website contains a compilation of the complementary norms approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. In some instances the bishops voted to retain existing norms or regulations, with due regard for any change or modification warranted by changes in the revised Code; in other instances they revised existing norms or created new norms where necessary. Those actions requiring recognitio or review by the Apostolic See, in accord with canon 455, §2, have been reviewed by the appropriate Roman dicastery.

It is our hope that this compilation will be a useful resource to bishops, canonists, chancery officials, and pastoral ministers. It is our intent to update this website periodically as additional particular legislation is established for the United States.

https://www.usccb.org/committees/canonical-affairs-church-governance/complementary-norms#tab--canon-276-§2-3º-permanent-deacons-and-the-liturgy-of-the-hours

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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
×
×
  • Create New...