This is what I call virulent intolerance in action. Somehow I don't think Jesus would have advised that if you don't agree with someone's politics and/or religion, you should punish their children.

No, you certainly shouldn't punish the children. Unless they are gay.

I suspect if they were providing meeting space for a cub scout pack the church was also the chartering organization which means they are responsible for choosing the leaders who by BSA policy cannot be openly gay/lesbian/atheist. The church might choose to ignore this (many chartering organizations do) but runs the risk of that leader being removed by the BSA national and having their charter yanked.

They do have the option of running a non-discriminating children's group unaffiliated with the BSA.

This is totally appropriate. We've all heard of institutional racism and we've worked hard to amend our ways. Institutional homophobia is a major justice and theological issue and yes, the church should be the very first to say it's wrong. That LGBT people are equalling created in the image of God and therefore they/we must not support this sin of homophobia. It's not as if no one is hurt. Have you looked at teen suicide rates among LGBT kids? Did you know that something like 40 percent of homeless kids are LGBT kids who are homeless because of intolerant families? Please, let's stop pretending that this just another issue that does no harm.

It's not the decision I would have made, but it's certainly within the parish's rights to do so. I'm glad that the rector will continue to work with individual scouts.

Ironically, BSA's policy keeps "out" gay men from being leaders, while doing nothing to keep out clandestine pedophiles/ephebophiles. I think it probably works to the sex abuser's advantage. And keeping out gay boys makes no kind of sense at all, given their explanation that they do so in order to let parents address issues of sexuality at home. In keeping gay boys out they're already usurping the parents' role they claim to support.

In 1992 I became rector of aa parish which had experienced severe legal battles over a scoutmaster's predatory behavior resulting in a lawsuit against BSA by the parents of a scout. BSA had a fine print exclusion in its sponsorship form which threw all legal liabilities to the sponsoring organization [parish]. In the end the parish was not allowed to proceed with litigation to defend itself, by the Church Insurance Co. - which made an out of court settlement with the parents of several 100 thousand dollars.
Ever since I have been wary of ever sponsoring a BSA troop. [Happily the Girl Scouts had no such exclusion.] I hope that this has changed since then, but a word to the wise if it has not. Of course the scoutmaster was not a parishioner and allegedly had prior legal problems with such issues.
The issue was and is not a GAY issue because the parish is exceptionally inclusive and I had three gay assisting priests on my staff.
Bob McCloskey

A strongly worded letter telling them of the dilemma the parish feels on the matter without actually kicking the kids out may, perhaps, get the message across to the BSA just as well without committing the parish to the unfortunate act of exclusion. Exclusion, after all, is what the BSA is being castigated for. Copies of the letter could be sent to local BSA officials also. I believe this can be addressed and even remedied without resorting to the devil's tactics.

Danny, given the BSA's recent, deeply flawed process of reviewing their ban - carried out by secret committee, resulting in (surprise!) a reaffirmation of the ban - I doubt if they will get much of a message either by a stern letter from the vestry *or* the parish dropping its charter. It would take many, many troop sponsoring organizations to take some sort of unified action, and even then I'm sure that there are plenty of anti-gay organizations that would be happy to step in and take over from them.

I didn't get the impression that the parish was doing this to send a message so much as to not be complicit in the BSA's policy of exclusion.

As long as the LDS Church uses the BSA as the official program for young men in it wards & branches in the USA and the church sponsors 1000s of dens, packs and troops in the USA, this BSA policy against gay men and boys and atheist men and boys will never change.

It would seem that if the parish actually sponsored this pack of cub scouts, then the article would have stated so. However, as I understand the BSA organization, a pack is like a diocese, it isn't the base unit, it is higher in the organizational structure and consists of cub dens from a larger area. I think that the parish donated space to the group and yes, may have even sponsored a den that was part of this pack. However, if these boys were not members of a national organization that by official policy discriminates against gay men and boys and atheist men and boys, then the kids wouldn't be in this predicament of some of you feeling the kids are being punished. There are other organizations for young men that do not discriminate. They do have a choice.

Bro David

Seems like this should have come up at general convention. A unified position from the top would be much better than piecemeal local incidents like this. Although kudos to the priest here - it's crazy to keep supporting organizations that harbor beliefs fundamentally opposed to your own.

Here is the only resolution I could find up to 2009 and I don't think there was anything done in 2012

Packs are chartered not dens. The latter are subunits of packs much like patrols are subunits of troops.

It seems to be not uncommon for a chartering organization not to be fully aware of what is entailed (e.g., the legal liability mentioned above which is why the national PTA recommends against local PTAs/PTOs chartering). Or that as a chartering organization they have an official voice by appointing a representative ("at least 21 years old, subscribes to the Declaration of Religious Principle, and agrees to abide by the Scout Oath or Promise and the Scout Law. Possesses the moral, educational, and emotional qualities that the Boy Scouts of America deems necessary to afford positive leadership to youth") in the local council's decisions (a power that the scouts and scouters do not).

The Girl Scouts have a very different setup (including allowing Girl Scouts/Scouters 14 and older to vote on or serve as council delegates); sponsoring organizations (if there is one) have neither the liability nor the power.