The joyful anticipation of a fresh conquest is palpable on the front page of today’s New York Times: “In a Quick Shift, Scouts Rethink a Ban on Gays.” That’s right, at its national executive board meeting next week, the Boy Scouts of America will consider eliminating its present policy of treating the Scouts’ requirement to be “morally straight” as barring openly homosexual boys and men from membership or leadership in the organization. The pressure of the LGBTQA (add a fresh letter at your own discretion) lobby, which has gotten to many corporate supporters of the Scouts, is on the brink of succeeding in altering the moral character of another venerable private institution.
According to the Times, the policy on the agenda of next week’s meeting would result in a localization of moral standards in Scout troops:
Mr. Smith, the Scouts spokesman, said that under the proposed policy, “the B.S.A. would not require any chartered organization to act in ways inconsistent with that organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs.” He said that members and parents would be able to choose a local unit that best met the needs of their families.
This attempt at compromise will last about five minutes, if the Scouts’ national executive is foolish enough to adopt it. Already one of the pressure-group leaders who has brought the Scouts to the brink of this change is warning that it does not go far enough:
“It’s a step in the right direction, and good to see that B.S.A. is softening its position,” [Zach Wahls] said. “But under the policy change, it will still be possible for some units to discriminate.”
This is a perfect occasion for a reminder of Neuhaus’ Law, named for First Things founding editor Richard John Neuhaus, who coined it in a “Public Square” entry in the January 1997 issue titled “The Unhappy Fate of Optional Orthodoxy.” Here is the Law as Fr. Neuhaus himself stated it: “Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.”
As Neuhaus went on to explain, with his usual trenchant insight:
With the older orthodoxy it is possible to disagree, as in having an argument. Evidence, reason, and logic count, in principle at least. Not so with the new orthodoxy. Here disagreement is an intolerable personal affront. It is construed as a denial of others, of their experience of who they are. It is a blasphemous assault on that most high god, “My Identity.” Truth-as-identity is not appealable beyond the assertion of identity. In this game, identity is trumps.
Just so. If the Boy Scouts drop the organization’s present position on homosexuality, not only will millions of parents withdraw their sons from the organization, and thousands of pastors will drop their churches’ sponsorship of Scout troops, they will be absolutely right to do so. For it will only be a matter of time before the Boy Scouts of America will pronounce itself in favor of same-sex marriage; will adopt instructional materials, mandatory in all troops, on the compulsory acceptance, by all members and leaders, of homosexual relations as normal and normative; and will move to silence all dissent from the new orthodoxy by boys, parents, troop leaders, and sponsoring organizations. The Scouts, in short, will rapidly become, from the top down, a national pro-gay organization, local control be damned.
That is the true choice the leaders of the BSA face next week. Be what the Scouts have always been, since the birth of the organization. Or rapidly become what the advocates of the “gay identity” demand, with all its attendant intolerance of dissent. There is no middle way, between standing upright and falling prostrate before new gods.
Oh, and next to go, of course, will be the proscription of atheism, though everyone swears it is not up for discussion now. That too will last about five minutes. You heard it here first.
January 29th, 2013 | 11:11 am
Should Wesley Hill be barred from being a Boy Scout leader?
There is an ongoing, and rapidly accelerating, recognition in this country that gay people shouldn’t be treated like lepers or pariahs or moral monsters. Being gay is not contagious. There is no reason to quarantine gay people or suppress knowledge of their existence. It seems to me that Catholics and other conservative Christians, if they want to continue to teach that homosexual behavior is immoral, have to find a way to do it without discriminating against gay people themselves. Certainly the Boy Scouts have a right to expect members to abide by a behavioral code—for example, no sex outside of marriage. But both gay and straight Boy Scouts can abide by that code.
Gay people are everywhere already. I don’t see why there is such intense fear in allowing them to make themselves known.
January 29th, 2013 | 11:27 am
The Scouts, then, are entitled to corporate sponsorship?
January 29th, 2013 | 11:39 am
As an Eagle Scout myself, I think this takes it a little too far. Do I agree with the overall premise of the article? Yes. Will all Councils, Districts, and Troops, and Patrols one day be required to admit all scouts, regardless of open sexuality or creed? This looks like it. But the idea that “the Boy Scouts of America will pronounce itself in favor of same-sex marriage; will adopt instructional materials, mandatory in all troops, on the compulsory acceptance, by all members and leaders, of homosexual relations as normal and normative; and will move to silence all dissent from the new orthodoxy by boys, parents, troop leaders, and sponsoring organizations. The Scouts, in short, will rapidly become, from the top down, a national pro-gay organization, local control be damned” just seems foolish. I don’t know if the author was ever a scout, but there are no materials that a scout is required to learn that involve any sort of sexual education, except those that his parents would choose to teach him. Family Life Merit Badge leaves its requirements open enough that an extremely conservative family can have a discussion about the nature of family and sexual ethics, while a very liberal family can have totally different definitions of the same things. While this leaves open all possibilities for familial ideology, I think that if we’re making a moral argument here, the scouts gave in to society when they let each family decide what these moral foundations were. Also, I’ve never understood the ban on gay scouts to be strictly ideological, but also practical, similar to the don’t ask, don’t tell policy in the military Six 13 year-old boys crammed into one tent aren’t going to love knowing that one of their friends in the tent is gay. Are they homophobic? A little. Is this reality? Yes. Scouts is pretty free from all sexual temptation or perverseness, because of the…
January 29th, 2013 | 12:12 pm
The Girl Scouts has been inclusive for a very long time. Somehow, it hasn’t destroyed them.
January 29th, 2013 | 12:16 pm
Sexual tension and/or attraction had no place in the former culture of the Boy Scouts. But then children (as we then called them) were allowed a period of stasis which provided them with the time necessary to integrate their sexuality – time to achieve at least the beginnings of mature personhood before being labels as a “this” or a “that” rather than simply a growing boy.
I am certain that a certain number of Boy Scouts have in the past and at this time struggled with questions surrounding sexuality.
But, until now there was no need to announce a particular policy on this question of sexuality. No child who was struggling inwardly with sexual desires was excluded (surely the Boy Scouts were not capable of mind reading) unless he himself or certain interested parties chose to make the matter an issue – in other words, decided to force a confrontation.
Since the organization has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual activity and since all of the members are of the same sex, the reasons for this initiative seem politically motivated.
January 29th, 2013 | 1:12 pm
@ David Nickol
I assume that by “openly homosexual,” they mean a “practicing homosexual.” Nothing sinful about being honest about your attraction to other men–only acting on it.
I recommend the following blog on this issue: http://beatushomo.blogspot.com/
January 29th, 2013 | 1:21 pm
Question for the BSA: Why don’t the Gay people form their own scout type organization and managed it the way they want? They have the freedom to that without prejudice or malice.
They could purchase the coypwrite materias of the BSA an use them in their organization if they want or better they could develop their own identity that meets their criteria of excellence. Also they could solicit their own corporate sponsers and be completely independent with their own society and not trouble the BSA to change its ways that have been around for centuries. This seems very fair and most democratic and thus the Gay minority contingent in the BSA can have it’s own exclusiveness without endangering the traditional BSA and its values and precepts. Minorities can flourish in this country they just can’t take over the majority for that would be most non-democratic and most non scout like. Then the new Gay BSA could slip down any slope they want to and instruct their members in their way of life without any sanction or difficulty. True freedom to grow or fall the way you want without harm to others who disagree.
January 29th, 2013 | 1:33 pm
The war on tradition is relentless. Without tradition we are a society without memory. One can only guess what will happen when we are all in the moment…
January 29th, 2013 | 1:35 pm
I’m afraid Tom O’D is being a little naive. The results of capitulation may not happen overnight, but the adage ‘slippery slope’ didn’t become a cliche without plenty of application. And Boo, it doesn’t take a great deal of research to see the national organization of Girl Scouts fell off the deep end a long time ago. No, they are not destroyed; they have adapted to our increasingly anti-Christian culture quite adroitly.
January 29th, 2013 | 1:43 pm
I think “A Reader” says all that really needs to be said about this. Kudos.
January 29th, 2013 | 1:45 pm
I assume that by “openly homosexual,” they mean a “practicing homosexual.” Nothing sinful about being honest about your attraction to other men–only acting on it.
John Burford,
It was to clarify this point that I asked if Wesley Hill—who is openly gay but celibate—should be barred from being a scout leader.
I would like to believe what you are saying is true, but I have a feeling that probably most would interpret the Boy Scout policy to mean that if a scout (or leader) said, “I am gay, but I intend to remain celibate,” he would be be told to leave. This is the policy in some of the religious schools in Georgia which are getting funding through the state’s program of tax credits to scholarship funds. Some schools have a policy of expelling boys if they say, “I am gay,” or, “I like boys.”
January 29th, 2013 | 1:47 pm
As a leader, I can attest that what the media is saying and what is going on is not the same. The issue on why I will leave along with many other leaders is; we will not stay in an organization that we pay to be a leader, and are only there to teach life and scouting skills, flip flop on their decisions when it comes to the boy’s safety (June 2012). I have homosexual parents in packs, that once they understand why we cannot have them as a registered leader are ok with it. They still have their boys involved and they themselves are still welcome to help out in a parental roll. It isn’t BSA’s responsibility to take on the roll of teaching if a life style is ok or not (which is what we found leaders who snuck through the system who were homosexual doing). We strongly believe and encourage this kind of discussion to take place in the family setting.
It is sad that the last refuge, private organization, which was standing for it’s principle are being pushed by people who are only trying to hurt the organization. There are scouting organization out there that have no issue with this subject, so why is BSA being targetted? I think it just because they want to flex their muscle. It is sad because in all of this, the boys are the victims… not the LGBABCD people.
January 29th, 2013 | 1:58 pm
The war on tradition is relentless. Without tradition we are a society without memory.
MaryGre,
The Boy Scouts were founded in 1910. They started barring gay people in the 1980s and 1990s. They should return to their original tradition of not discriminating. The Boy Scouts have a perfect right to bar or expel leaders of scouts for improper behavior. But having a homosexual orientation should not in and of itself be a reason for exclusion. That is unjust discrimination.
January 29th, 2013 | 2:13 pm
Neuhaus:
I’m curious what Neuhaus thought of the orthodoxy of Roman gods, and the tradition of feeding Christians to the lions. Sure, there was plenty of debate about the merits of these kinds of spectacles, and different administrations using or discontinuing the practice. Apparently some Christians regarded the practice as a personal affront. The Romans often offered the Christians the option of renouncing their faith, but the Christians had the effrontery of claiming that Christianity was part of their identity. Honestly, there’s simply no reasoning with some people!
Or, more recently, we could look to the orthodox views in the US that regarded Catholics as beyond the pale of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant hegemony. Housing covenants prohibited home owners from selling property to Catholics. Employers would post signs saying “No Catholics Need Apply.” Of course, there were no shortages of people debating the practice. Then along came a bunch of busy-body legislators declaring it illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion for employment, housing, and public accommodations. And suddenly people who want to engage in good-old-fashioned orthodox discrimination against Catholics are regarded as some kind of pariahs. Blatant pandering to identity politics, no?
In short, arguments grounded in identify are always trivial – provided we’re talking about somebody…
January 29th, 2013 | 2:23 pm
Boo said that the Girl Scouts have been inclusive and it hasn’t hurt them.
Oh, yes, it has. individual troops may be little changed depending on local leadership, but the achievement aspect of scouting, that every girl can find things she is good at, can learn, and can achieve (as measured by badges) is practically gone. Little runny-nosed girls could get their Pet Badge or their Cooking Badge and be happy in their goal. Now, the badges are much less “girl-oriented,” misguided feminism has decried any of the household arts as worthwhile to pursue.
Girl Scouting at its worst now is all about “feelings,” all about “celebrating diversity” whatever the hell that means when you have 12 ten-year-olds who would rather giggle and make things and shyly visit senior citizens and go to the zoo.
I separated myself from it years ago, when they stopped camping and started protesting. Phew.
January 29th, 2013 | 3:21 pm
nobody.really, the early church did not demand “inclusion” in jupiter’s temple. they did not demand leadership roles in the parthenon.
as for your “recent” examples, i suppose it’s too much to ask from our society today to understand the difference between spiritual belief and sexual practice, and the impact that has on the family. oh well, as long as two people love each other. though one could be forgiven for wondering why all those inner-city children with two parents who love each other — a mom and a grand mom — grow up with such violent tendencies.
tell us, if you will, which is unnecessary, moms or dads? and if “two” is the magic parental number, why is “three” not better?
January 29th, 2013 | 3:46 pm
And that’s perfectly consistent with the BSA’s policy of excluding all but asexual people from participating in the co-ed Venturingprogram.
Except that they have no such policy. Even for the 13-year-olds.
Exactly! Let’s get back to the days before 1913 when the Catholic Church forbad members from joining the BSA (too closely associated with that Protestant YMCA), and the Mormons had their own Mutual Improvement Association.
Another scouting tradition: segregation! After all, racially segregated troops were all the rage up through the 1940s.
And when the BSA proposed to have blacks and whites join the same troops, guess what happened? People threatened to leave the organization and burn their uniforms. Some things change – but some never do, eh?
Change – it’s part of the tradition of scouting. Embrace it or not.
January 29th, 2013 | 3:48 pm
Having had kids in both Girl Scouts AND Boy Scouts, I can honestly say that the two organizations are NOT comparable. The Boy Scouts have held steadfast to morally sound principles….til now….whereas you read stories of certain Girl Scout chapters working alongside questionable agencies (read “Planned Parenthood”)…..anyway, if the Boy Scouts do adopt this policy, you can rest assured I will be pulling my son from this organization. There are other solid groups out there that do everything they can to conform to Christ’s teachings (see Conquest)…..
Anyway, let’s see how this plays out.
January 29th, 2013 | 4:34 pm
“…not only will millions of parents withdraw their sons from the organization…”
And I would be one of them.
I was a Scout, and I hope that, one day, when I have a son, he could become one as well. But if the Scouts adopt this policy…I will be forced to look for alternatives.
It’s not about bigotry (but we will hear that refrain anyway) or fear of proselytization (though this is not a completely nonexistent concern). It would undermine everything I hope to inculcate in him. It would say, in short, that however much the Catholic church we belong to and worship in every day believes that homosexual acts are disordered, I must not really believe that, because I’m allowing him to join a body that has as its possible head a man who lives a life of such acts openly as positive goods. The same would be true if the scoutmaster were an open adulterer.
Believe me, this will gut the Scouts. And you’ll see the rise of denominational youth groups to replace it, groups explicitly tied to their churches so as to gain First Amendment protections that may not be afforded the Boy Scouts for much longer.
January 29th, 2013 | 4:42 pm
Hello David Nickol,
“It was to clarify this point that I asked if Wesley Hill—who is openly gay but celibate—should be barred from being a scout leader.”
This is a chimera. And you know it is, because we both know that gay rights activists will not for one second be content with such a compromise.
January 29th, 2013 | 4:44 pm
If this comes to pass, then I will pull my boy from Scouts. It wont be because of “fear” as some ridiculously suggest. I simply don’t approve of the lifestyle. To those who come to this site just to trash the blog, I recommend reading the journal on a consistent basis. You would do well to start with the “Same Sex Science” article from February 2012.
January 29th, 2013 | 6:24 pm
This is a chimera. And you know it is, because we both know that gay rights activists will not for one second be content with such a compromise.
Richard M,
Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in making my point. I am not asking what happens if the rules change. I am asking if an acknowledged gay person like Wesley Smith, committed to celibacy, who believes basically what the Catholic Church believes about homosexuality, is not now permitted to be a scout leader merely because of his orientation and the fact that he let’s it be known.
Kids start in the Boy Scouts at 11-1/2 and may stay until they turn 18. A certain percentage of boys, let’s say 4%, are going to realize that they are gay during those years. Should they quit the Boys Scouts, even if they keep their orientation a secret and don’t act on it?
Would we want our boys sleeping in the same tent as a homosexual, even a closeted one? I don’t see why there would be dramatically fewer gay teen boys in the scouts than in the general population. Should they all quit? Are they unfit to be around heterosexual scouts?
January 29th, 2013 | 6:58 pm
This is a chimera. And you know it is . . .
Richard M,
If I could add a phrase to the filter I assume exists that scans messages for objectionable words before the moderator’s review, I would add “and you know it.” Saying such-and-such is the case, or is wrong, or is a lie, followed by “and you know it,” is accusing the person you are in the discussion with of bad faith. Why can’t we all assume here that people, no matter how wrongheaded they may seem from our own point of view, are actually saying what they believe?
January 29th, 2013 | 7:39 pm
If this comes to pass, then I will pull my boy from Scouts.
John,
Are you saying that if the national organization says each local group should decide this issue for itself, that will be sufficient cause for separating from the Boy Scouts?
January 29th, 2013 | 8:28 pm
If the BSA caves into PC pressure, our youth in this outstanding organization will be subjected to the propaganda prevalent in our schools that homosexuality is the same as the heterosexual lifestyle which is not true.
Numerous scientific studies have demonstrated the serious medical and psychological health risks to youth and to adults in the homosexual lifestyle,
http://www.childhealing.com/articles/ssayouth-if-imh.php and that children have the psychological need for a father and a mother.
January 29th, 2013 | 9:42 pm
John:
“If this comes to pass, then I will pull my boy from Scouts. It wont be because of “fear” as some ridiculously suggest. I simply don’t approve of the lifestyle.”
If your son turned out to be gay, would you take him out preemptively from Scouts? Or would you, as a loving parent, want him to continue to participate in the organization?
January 29th, 2013 | 9:53 pm
A Reader:
“No child who was struggling inwardly with sexual desires was excluded (surely the Boy Scouts were not capable of mind reading) unless he himself or certain interested parties chose to make the matter an issue – in other words, decided to force a confrontation.”
You’d think it appropriate, then, for scout leaders to expel children who they thought were insufficiently heterosexual, whether or not the children consciously acted this way?
The huge, yawning problem with the BSA’s ban on prospective non-heterosexual scouts is that it places non-heterosexual children beyond the pale for no fault of their own.
January 29th, 2013 | 10:00 pm
David, who is advocating “quarantining” gay people?
January 29th, 2013 | 10:39 pm
Girl Scouts do not let heterosexual men lead overnight events. So Girl Scouts are NOT “inclusive”. They discriminate. Implausibly, however, Girl Scout do allow lesbians to be leaders, even though they have the same potential for pedophilia against minors, being attracted to the female sex. Likewise, it would be stupid for the BSA to allow homosexual men, who by definition are attracted to males, to lead boys. Pedophiles place themselves in positions of power and trust over their victims, and it makes no sense to set up children as prey in the name of some swanky hip notion of “fairness” or “equality”. Let’s be clear here: The Catholic Church didn’t have a “predator priest scandal”. It had a “homosexual predator priest scandal”, and the BSA is about to go down the same path of neglect and irresponsibility.
January 29th, 2013 | 11:38 pm
People with same sex attractions are just people like the rest of us. Not something evil. That being said just because a person has a feeling or desire no matter how deeply felt does not suddenly make the thing they desire good. For many of us, homosexuality is not good it is a sin. Everyone commits sins but that doe snot make them any less of a sin. The Scouts used to teach that one shoudl live morally straight. This means to struggle against sin and immoral behaviors. Someone actively living a homosexual lifestyle is not living morally straight and therefore should not be a scout. Yes this is a judgement about a person. An individual cannot control if they have same sex attractions but one can control their actions. Unfortunately the Scouts are now worried about the money supply so they are loosening up morally straight. They are simply reflecting the weakness of our culture. I will be returning my Eagle Award if they make this change. It is weasel behavior to dump this on the local organizations so the national can feel like they didn’t roll over
January 29th, 2013 | 11:45 pm
Excellent concluding point about atheism. In fact, there is a deep connection at work there: Acceptance of open homosexuality and SSM is basically a proclamation of atheism. It is a repudiation of all traditional religious belief about the distinctive and complementary nature of the sexes and about the universal moral law—the law of nature and of nature’s God. It is the establishment of unbelief and the disenfranchisement of the majority of religious believers in this country. Won’t I now be a thought criminal when I teach my children that homosexuality is wrong and SSM is a tragedy and a fiction?
January 30th, 2013 | 2:29 am
David Nickol- Actually, they start at 6 in Scouting. So, yeah. This is a big deal. I know of men who had abuse incidents happen at scout camp, by other scouts. Before the ban. I am sorry if that has negative impacts on others, but when I was in kindergarten we were taught the “bad apple rule”. I think it needs to be reintroduced. There is also a little problem no one has addressed, and that is freedom of association. I have the right to choose who I associate with. And if I am dumb enough to try and join the LGBwhatever group as a married woman, I would expect them to say no. I don’t see non-alcoholics lining up for AA (they made their own group), or even better (and so relevant, too!!), girls creating Girls Scouts is in fact a group started because……..they couldn’t be boy scouts. As close as my oldest is to eagle, I am praying that BSA holds the line!!!!
January 30th, 2013 | 6:20 am
David, who is advocating “quarantining” gay people?
Publius,
Should boys already in the Scouts quit if the come to the realization that they are gay? Should “closeted” Scouts and Scout leaders who engage in no objectionable behavior quit? If a boy struggling and confused confides in a trusted adult Scout leader that he thinks he is gay, should the Scout leader tell the boy to quit the Scouts?
January 30th, 2013 | 8:12 am
The BSA has won in court the right to this policy. That has made them a target for gay rights groups, just like anyone else who won’t celebrate their behavior. It is naive to say that this is just about one gay scout who wants to just participate. This is about making it socially unacceptable and then illegal to believe that there is a difference between real marriage and same sex attempts at marriage. The slippery slope will happen because the groups bullying for this change will not stop until the BSA celebrates homosexuality.
January 30th, 2013 | 8:27 am
Reply to Randy McDonald: I regret that my post was not clearly stated and that it produced such misunderstanding.
My post contains a reference to “stasis”. I might also have used the term “latency”. These two words refer to a period of time set aside for development and maturation. In our former culture, children and youths were strongly encouraged to use this time well.
Too hasty decisions about oneself and the action resulting from those decisions were understood to have the most serious consequences for adult life. Progress in the science of the brain help us understand even more clearly just how dangerous these early events in a life are because of immature formation and certain natural chemical processes.
A period of formation is simply necessary for the protection of children and young people. Their human dignity requires it. Any labeling of a child as a “this or a that” is, in my opinion, reprehensible. Development takes time. Certain groups seem determined to force the issue of sexuality long before any decision is necessary. In the name of children’s human rights, I protest.
January 30th, 2013 | 8:28 am
There is frankly no way I would allow my son to join a scout pack led by a homosexual man or my daughter to join a troop led by a heterosexual man. Honestly, I would also be suspicious of any leader who is not a parent of one of the scouts in the troop. I think it would be naive and negligent in the extreme to do otherwise. I suppose such men might have some nonsexual, altruistic motive in wanting to be around children, but I would not take the risk at my child’s expense, political correctness be damned.
January 30th, 2013 | 9:02 am
There is also a little problem no one has addressed, and that is freedom of association.
Danielle,
The Supreme Court in 2000 affirmed the right of freedom of association for the Boy Scouts, ruling that they did not have to allow gay people as leaders or scouts. This has not been overlooked.
I am sorry if that has negative impacts on others, but when I was in kindergarten we were taught the “bad apple rule”. I think it needs to be reintroduced.
How far to you think the Boy Scouts should go in screening gay people from their ranks? Should scouts who realize they are gay when the become adolescents resign?
January 30th, 2013 | 9:12 am
“And if I am dumb enough to try and join the LGBwhatever group as a married woman, I would expect them to say no.”
1. As a woman married to … who? For that matter, even if you were married to a man, if you were bisexual or transgendered you could still join.
2. The analogy you strike is not perfect. In the context of a “LGBwhatever group”, sexual orientation is germane inasmuch as it’s a characteristic shared by members of a marginalized group. How is heterosexuality similar in the context of the BSA?
Note, too, that this ban applied to scouts as well as leaders–if anything, it came up in the public in connection to scouts who were kicked out of the movement. If your oldest was gay, would you want him to be kicked out before he got his Eagle?
January 30th, 2013 | 9:15 am
The point of the Boy Scouts is not about camping and merit badges. It is about character formation. All the other stuff are merely trappings. Yes, it is good that boys learn how to camp, the proper handling of knives and axes, and how to tie knots. But its real goal is taking boys and turning them into young men. Part of that is the the virtues of loyality, reverence, and the other marks of the Scouting Creed. That reverence is an important part of what Scouting sees as character is why atheists do not belong. Reverence for traditional Christianity was part and parcel of Scouting. The relaxing of strictures against homosexuality is a change in what Scouting believes is what makes up character. To those who hold to orthodox Chrisitianity, this is a serious problem. It is one more milestone in the homosexual project to remove any public suggestion that there is something morally questionable with same-sex behavior.
January 30th, 2013 | 9:37 am
There is frankly no way I would allow my son to join a scout pack led by a homosexual man or my daughter to join a troop led by a heterosexual man.
peg,
Would you allow your son to join a scout pack with a lesbian leader or your daughter to join a troop led by a homosexual man? The intent of my question is whether you are solely concerned about possible sexual abuse, or whether you think no gay man or lesbian is fit to work with children.
Do you think that Jerry Sandusky would have gotten away with years and years of abuse if he had been openly gay instead of a married man?
January 30th, 2013 | 10:07 am
“Oh, and next to go, of course, will be the proscription of atheism, though everyone swears it is not up for discussion now.”
Why should that be a big deal? The BSA allows boys with all sorts of religions now, many with mutually contradictory views on morals. Functionally, atheism can be indistinguishable from some forms of Deism that posit a god that does not interfere or care about humans, so why is the Deist acceptable but the atheist is not?
January 30th, 2013 | 10:35 am
First: the Boy Scouts of America is not a boy-only organization. Venture Scouting allows membership of both boys & girls age 14 to 21. Also, adult leadership is open to men and women, and many of our grassroots leaders are mothers and grandmothers of Scouts. Many of our leaders have been involved for years, often several decades. Without the adult leaders (called “Scouters”) the organization would not exist. (By way of example, in my pack of 35 cubs, I have 12 registered, uniformed Scouters—some parents, some not).
Here are some of the issues not yet raised: My individual pack is sponsored by a Catholic organization (Knights of Columbus, our “Chartered Organization”). Since all adult leaders need to be approved first by the Chartered Org representative, we could exercise control over who serves as a registered leader. So, on the surface, BSA national’s policy of letting the Chartered Organization decide seemingly would work. But that’s not how Scouting works. When I take my boy’s to camp this Summer, they are combined with Cubs from a dozen or more packs in our Council– and their adult leaders. Do I know who these leaders are? Rarely. Do I have the option to not associate with those leaders? Hardly. Do the boys? No.
Another consideration: BSA Nationals is a huge bureaucracy, with a large professional staff, large, expensive national camping facilities (which few Scouts actually ever get to go to), and a strong thirst for corporate largess. The local councils have professional staffs as well which rely upon corporate sponsorship as well as “Friends of Scouting” fundraising. The value of each is questionable, but Scouting takes place at the local level. We pay dues– both the Scouts and the Scouters. We raise money for our activities. We buy our uniforms, tents, packs, and such. In other words, the corporate relationships which…
January 30th, 2013 | 10:57 am
According to Wikipedia, the Boy Scouts accept Buddhists, who do not believe in a supreme being or creator. The “no atheists” policy seems in practice to require not necessarily belief in God, but some kind of spiritual beliefs. Given R. R. Reno’s strong criticisms of the Dalai Lama and Buddhism in his recent piece Freedom from Religion, I am not quite sure why Christians should welcome Buddhists into the Boy Scouts.
January 30th, 2013 | 11:51 am
Exactly; David Nickol beats me to it. This is our contemporary religious conundrum.
Once upon a time, people took religion seriously. You could tell, because they refused to associate themselves with people with conflicting religious perspectives. But with the rise of secularism, some religions people have come to regard all other religious people as kindred spirits in pursuit of some “least common denominator” religion.
Thus we learn what is really fundamental to someone’s religion — embrace of Jesus as Lord and Savior, or rejection of homosexuality and atheism. Consider: Would you rather your child join a troop of kids who reverently proclaim, “As devout Jews we know that Jesus was a fraud, and people who say otherwise are fools or worse”? Or a troop in which at least one kid is willing to say that he has come to question Jewish teaching and is now agnostic? The BSA policy seeks to protect your child from the latter situation, but not the former. Why an orthodox Christian would embrace such a policy, I can’t imagine.
January 30th, 2013 | 12:02 pm
John Burford writes, “Nothing sinful about being honest about your attraction to other men–only acting on it.”
I have heard this line plenty of times and it certainly is not Christian orthodoxy. Jesus raised the bar and said that internal temptation to anger or lust is just as bad as “acting on it.”
January 30th, 2013 | 12:54 pm
At the core the question that we need to answer as a country/society is what is an acceptable level of discrimination? We discriminate against minors by not allowing them to vote. It is not their fault they are not 18 but we as a society have decided that an individual under the age of 18 generally should not be given the right to vote. We believe in general they are not mature enough. We are making a value judgment about all people under 18 and therefore discrimnating in the real sense of the word. Do the Scouts have the right as an organization to discriminate in allow some people to be members and other not? I say yes but then it gets sticky. It would be morally wrong to discriminate against someone because they are African-American. Our country is now in a struggle over gender identity and many matters about sexuality. Many find homosexuality immoral and many do not. We have to draw lines at times and make judgments about people. Some people may be harmed by these decisions but that is life. I believe that the Scouts should have the right to exclude individuals who actively pursue a homesexual lifestyle and act on these behaviors. I believe that Scouts should restrict an individual that consistently and knowingly lies or pretty much any immoral act. I do not support attacking or hating anyone that is also morally wrong. But it is appropriate and responsible to promote virtue and truth. This will mean that people will decide to act in ways that they need to be told is unacceptable to the society as a whole. The whole area of sexuality and gender identity is not slam dunk settled as some groups would shout at me.
January 30th, 2013 | 1:38 pm
Jesus raised the bar and said that internal temptation to anger or lust is just as bad as “acting on it.”
OrthoDude,
Jesus said, “But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” This does not mean that men who are attracted to women commit adultery in their hearts, or men who are attracted to men commit sodomy in their hearts. Finding someone attractive is not the same as looking at that person with lust. It is not mainstream Christianity (certainly not Catholicism) to claim that someone with a homosexual orientation is sinful simply because he or she experiences that orientation.
Also, I don’t think Jesus said, or intended to say, that looking at another with lust was “just as bad” as actually having sex with that person. If it is just as bad to look with lust as to commit adultery, a person might as well just go ahead and commit adultery.
January 30th, 2013 | 2:31 pm
Therese Z, ditto on the Girl Scouts. I backed out of that after having some really bad experiences with my oldest daughter (now 18). I will not let my 6 year old participate. You used to work for a cooking badge, now its the yoga badge. Yikes!!! Thank God for Little Flowers!
January 30th, 2013 | 3:18 pm
There go the Boy Scouts. The article is right. It is only a matter of time before the Handbook is changed and those who dare disagree will be tossed out. Another lost institution in our disintegrating society.
January 30th, 2013 | 3:43 pm
Mr. Nickol
You admonish a commenter for accusing you of arguing in bad faith, then a while later you reply to peg:
——
There is frankly no way I would allow my son to join a scout pack led by a homosexual man or my daughter to join a troop led by a heterosexual man.
peg,
Would you allow your son to join a scout pack with a lesbian leader or your daughter to join a troop led by a homosexual man? The intent of my question is whether you are solely concerned about possible sexual abuse, or whether you think no gay man or lesbian is fit to work with children.
——
There is no possible way to read peg’s statement, with its inclusion of “or my daughter to join a troop led by a heterosexual man”, in support of the notion that she thinks that “no gay man or lesbian is fit to work with children”. Her concern is clearly about possible sexual abuse.
This response is quite like your habit in other threads of implying that those who argue against homosexual marriage do so out of anti-gay bigotry: it effectively shifts the focus away from the point the commenter was making towards them having to defend themselves as not holding an opinion that they have shown no evidence of holding.
Can you now understand why someone would think that some of your arguments are not made in good faith?
January 30th, 2013 | 3:56 pm
Jesus did not say that internal temptation to lust or anger was a form of adultery or murder. He said giving in to the temptation of lust or anger was a form of adultery or murder. Attraction need not be lust; feeling an attraction need not be equated with giving in to lust.
January 30th, 2013 | 4:48 pm
David Nickoll: Being sexually attracted to a person is more than acknowledging some “is attractive”. Brad Pitt is a obviously attractive, but I have zero interest in going to bed with him. I think is foolish to try to split hairs between being sexually attracted to someone with the associated feelings of sexual arousal, etc. versus feelings of lust.
And you are simply wrong with the business: Well, Jesus really didn’t mean to say that lust was as bad physical adultery.
This is Christianity 101. He could not have been more clear: “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.” Jesus did not diminish sins of the heart, nor should we.
And Albert Mohler points out the many times St. Paul writes of impure passions.
What about the Catholics? The U.S. Catholic Bishops did write, “Although one would be morally culpable if one were voluntarily to entertain homosexual temptations or to choose to act on them, simply having the tendency is not a sin.” I certainly have a tendency towards opposite sex lust. If a woman is wearing revealing clothing, I should avert my eyes, rather than dwelling on her and entertaining impure thoughts. The dwelling on the revealing clothing IS the volitional sinful action. If I become a hermit, then my tendency to look upon a woman lustfully is not sinful because I am not looking on any women at all.
January 30th, 2013 | 5:06 pm
Also, I don’t think Jesus said, or intended to say, that looking at another with lust was “just as bad” as actually having sex with that person. If it is just as bad to look with lust as to commit adultery, a person might as well just go ahead and commit adultery.
Then you thoroughly missed his point.
I would quibble with OrthoDude’s use of the word “temptation” but his gist is accurate – the sixth and ninth commandments are both relevant and covetousness is just as much a sin as adultery.
Orientation and even temptation are not sinful unless acted upon – “to long for inordinately or unlawfully” is considered an action.
January 30th, 2013 | 5:16 pm
I have been, for many years, a member of the BSA. A gay friend once questioned how this could be so. I pointed out that my brother, who was gay, was a member of the Gay Mens’ Chorus of Portland, Maine. Which of these, I asked, was more discriminatory? The BSA said you had be be straight and believe in a higher power. My brother’s organization required that you be male, gay, able to sing and live in a specific geographic area.
The answer, of course, is that both groups discriminate. And, until recently, that was permitted. I am sure, however, that the Gay Mens’ Chorus won’t be feeling any particular pressure any time soon.
January 30th, 2013 | 6:10 pm
This comports with the 10 Commandments’ prohibition on the act of coveting. And, I guess, with the doctrine of original sin.
It doesn’t coincide so well with the idea that an act of will is required for sin. Simply to have the sensation of lust is sinful all by itself, no matter how unbidden the sensation. And, of course, it doesn’t coincide very well with contemporary notions of justice.
January 30th, 2013 | 7:42 pm
I think the bottom line is that the devil and the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls also seek the destruction of all that is good. This is part of a war against God. Given the percentages of actual homosexuals and lesbians in our society the influence of those favorable to that life style can be explained by so many being antagonistic towards God.
The Boy Scouts have a pretty horrible record of not protecting Scouts from predatory leaders. They have actively shuffled records and allowed guilty men to move rather than prosecute.
I received the Eagle badge years ago. I have never thrown away or disposed of my Eagle stuff because I didn’t want anyone who wasn’t an Eagle to use them. Now, why should I care? Is that something I can just forget to mention?
January 30th, 2013 | 8:17 pm
I hope that if this happens, all Catholic Churches will disallow the boy scouts to meet in their churches.
January 30th, 2013 | 10:25 pm
Why would a just God let people have homosexual attractions, if the attractions are sinful? Surely they must have done something to deserve their circumstances, right?
I know of no evidence supporting the assertion that homosexual attraction is cause by antagonism to God. Nor can I imagine what evidence COULD be offered to support such an assertion.
In the absence of evidence, this type of argument is simple victim-blaming. In our need to address our own cognitive dissonance about apparent injustice in the world, should we compound the injustice?
No. We cannot solve injustice. We cannot understand injustice. But we can acknowledge injustice. We can honor its victims by looking them in the eye. Whatever the morality of sexual attraction, none of us should accept attributions of cause or accusations of blame without evidence.
January 30th, 2013 | 11:28 pm
You don’t have to reach any religious or psychological conclusions to understand the very practical reality that the vast majority of sexual abuse perpetrated upon boys is by homosexual men. Period. Therefore, only fools would entrust homosexual men with their boys. It’s really just that simple. You don’t take chances with health, life, and emotional well-being of children. Any more than the “enlightened” Girls Scouts do not permit heterosexual men to take charge of their girls. Are boys less important to society than girls? Surely not.
January 30th, 2013 | 11:54 pm
Doug: “The Boy Scouts have a pretty horrible record of not protecting Scouts from predatory leaders. They have actively shuffled records and allowed guilty men to move rather than prosecute. ”
This is absolutely untrue. There have been millions of scout leader/scout interactions and very few cases of abuse – much less than the Catholic Church and certainly much less than public schools. The evil predators try to infiltrate the Scouting organization and the BSA has done an incredible job of resisting them.
These is more clenched teeth hatred by the “tolerant” crowd.
January 31st, 2013 | 6:38 am
To nothing.really:
God did make us free. How else would it have been possible to become a person in full; an “acting person”. We must actually, freely choose among all of the possibilities that are offered to us. We are not, like a cat in the presence of a mouse, helpless in the face of our instincts or our passions.
It is in my opinion a serious error to blame God for our mistaken or wrong choices. We are responsible for our behavior and our choices. To deny that very difficult truth is to deny the source of human dignity.
January 31st, 2013 | 9:09 am
There is no possible way to read peg’s statement, with its inclusion of “or my daughter to join a troop led by a heterosexual man “. . . .
Jerry Beckett,
You make a very good point there. My question to peg would have been appropriate if she had said she would not want her son in a troop led by a homosexual man or her daughter in a troop led by a lesbian. Apologies to peg.
This response is quite like your habit in other threads of implying that those who argue against homosexual marriage do so out of anti-gay bigotry:
I do certainly think (and say) a lot of people oppose same-sex marriage out of anti-gay bigotry, but I am very careful not to accuse anyone here of anti-gay bigotry. I try to answer people’s arguments, not read their minds (as Mike Melendez accuses me of doing) or ascribe hidden motives to them. If you see me doing otherwise, I hope you will call me on it.
. . . . it effectively shifts the focus away from the point the commenter was making towards them having to defend themselves as not holding an opinion that they have shown no evidence of holding.
I think you are giving me credit for being craftier than I am. I don’t strategize. I don’t read people’s messages and say, “Hmmm . . . I know what they’re saying, but I’m going to craft a response to draw attention away from their argument and put them on the defensive.” That kind of thing is for politicians and political consultants.
January 31st, 2013 | 9:37 am
Can you now understand why someone would think that some of your arguments are not made in good faith?
Jerry Beckett,
Of course I can understand it. It just happens not to be true. Kathryn Schulz has a fine TED talk (and book) about being wrong. At one point in both the talk and the book, she notes that there’s a kind of three-step process we go through when people disagree with us. First, we think they simply must not have all the necessary information. So we inform them of what we think they don’t know. When they still disagree with us, we decide they must be stupid. When it becomes apparent that they are really quite intelligent, there’s one explanation left. They’re evil.
Many in this forum see things from such different points of view that when we disagree, we can’t help but suspect those who disagree with us can’t really believe what they are saying, so we assume they must be up to no good. I think we all have to keep reminding ourselves that people of good will can disagree.
Regarding my message to peg, it was a matter of reading what she said and then answering what I imagined her position to be rather than basing my response on what she no doubt took pains not to say. I don’t offer this as an excuse, but it’s not uncommon in discussions of hot-button topics. It doesn’t surprise me at all when people do the same thing to me.
January 31st, 2013 | 9:55 am
You don’t have to reach any religious or psychological conclusions to understand the very practical reality that the vast majority of sexual abuse perpetrated upon boys is by homosexual men. Period.
Norm,
Actually, that was not the conclusion of the John Jay Report (on sexual abuse by priests). Of course, there’s no denying it if you define a man who sexually abuses boys as a homosexual man. But then what do you mean by “homosexual man”? Is a married man with kids who sexually abuses a boy a “homosexual man”? Were the Greeks boys who were courted by older, married men, and then grew up, married, and courted boys all homosexuals? I think it’s a great deal more complicated than that.
I have no data to back it up, but I would guess that an openly gay scout leader is probably a safer choice precisely because he would be well aware he is always under suspicion. But I have taken no position on gay men as scout leaders. What I find to be the real issue is boys in scouting who come to realize they are gay. What are they supposed to do?
January 31st, 2013 | 11:03 am
Perhaps someone actively involved in scouting could tell us if all the talk about trusting gay men with Boy Scouts, or straight men with Girl Scouts has any relevance to how scouting works in practice. I don’t know, but I have a very strong feeling that no adult is ever left alone with a group of boys or girls. People who prey on youths do not wear a button that says “Predator.” So in situations like scouting, I presume the approach is to trust no one. Or, looking at it from another angle, I assume adults are never left in a situation with young people where misunderstandings or false accusations could put them in jeopardy. Everybody wants to protect the young people, and the adults don’t want to be put in situations where anyone could even hint that there might have been improprieties.
January 31st, 2013 | 11:06 am
David, It’s almost laughable to have to explicate the point to you, that a man who engages in homosexual behavior is a homosexual. And a man who engages in homosexual pedophilia, as did 99.9% of the (very small percentage of priests) sexual abusing priests, is a homosexual predator. It doesn’t matter what some PC-Report tried to paper over. Most of the Catholic laity, most priests (who are faithfully chaste), and most police and prosecutors know what the dominant PC Media won’t honestly acknowledge: The Catholic priests who did the abuse (again, a very small number of them) engaged in Man-on-Boy pedophilia, and by definition, that is homosexual activity. It was MUCH more a Gay Scandal than a Priest Scandal! To have to parse this out for you, tells me you’re not facing the reality that homosexual predators seek relationships of power, trust, and control over their would-be victims. This is simply basic common sense, which is in short supply these days.
January 31st, 2013 | 11:09 am
I know I’m in a shrinking minority, but I still don’t accept the premise that homosexuality is a immutable trait. I have known too many people who have gone from homosexuality to heterosexuality, or vice versa, or both. And am I supposed to accept that bisexuality is also immutable? If that is so, then don’t bisexuals have a civil right to two spouses?
If two adult males want to have anal intercourse, that’s unfortunate. But teaching boys that this is normal and acceptable is an abomination. Now gay is cool, and adolescents are forced into choosing sexual identities when they have little ability to understand their emotions or the consequences of making their feelings public.
If we accept that people are simply born gay, then we have to deal with the language of discrimination and labels of bigotry. I do not accept it. Show me the gene.
January 31st, 2013 | 11:35 am
Mr. Nickol,
You wrote:
I try to answer people’s arguments, not read their minds (as Mike Melendez accuses me of doing) or ascribe hidden motives to them. If you see me doing otherwise, I hope you will call me on it.
In your next comment you wrote:
…it was a matter of reading what she said and then answering what I imagined her position to be….
So rather than address her point, you opted to challenge the position you “imagined” her position to have. How is this not an instance of you thinking you can “read their minds”?
Continuing:
…rather than basing my response on what she no doubt took pains not to say.
You here claim to know “what she no doubt took pains not to say”. You’ve gone from “imagining” her position to outright ascribing it to her, though you discern that she “took great pains” not to reveal it. How is this not an instance of you seeking to “ascribe hidden motives to them” as well as to “read their minds”?
I think you’re neither stupid nor evil, but when you argue in the manner you did in your response to peg and now to me, you are quite tiresome.
Have a nice weekend,
Jerry
January 31st, 2013 | 12:18 pm
Norm:
It’s almost laughable to have to explicate Bayesian statistics to anyone, they seem so obvious. But apparently not.
Let’s say 99.9% of priests don’t abuse anyone. But 100% of the priests who abuse people are priests. So what conclusions can we draw about the wisdom of letting priests supervise children?
Similarly, let’s say that 99.9% of homosexuals don’t abuse children. But 100% of homosexuals that abuse children are homosexuals. Again, what conclusions do we draw about the wisdom of letting homosexuals supervise children?
Let’s employ Norm’s reasoning here: Observe that the BSA has no policy against homosexuals as defined by Norm. The BSA merely has a policy against people who are known before the fact to be a homosexual – typically due to their self-disclosure. Norm offers NO data about the threat posed to children by people who self-disclose as homosexual. It’s the people who hide their proclivities – priests and the like – that would seem to pose the threat.
What conclusions can we draw from that fact? By definition, 0% of the people who self-disclose as homosexual are hiding their homosexuality. Thus the threat would seem to come primarily from people who have NOT declared themselves to be homosexual – and that’s a category that includes 100% of the BSA’s current leadership!
Clearly this is faulty analysis, whether engaged in by me or Norm. Here’s the real analysis: You can’t judge the many on the basis of the conduct of a few — whether those few happen to be pedophile priests or pedophile homosexuals.
January 31st, 2013 | 1:19 pm
Wrong, nobody — there *is* a policy against those who are homosexual, but don’t admit it. The Boy Scouts require honesty as one of their benchmark attributes.
Therefore, anyone who applies to be a leader in an organization that is widely known to ban homosexuals, but fails to disclose that, is intimating that he is not homosexual, and therefore violating the policy that requires Scouts and leaders to be honest.
January 31st, 2013 | 1:45 pm
Nobody.Really (do you have a name you’d care to share?), thanks for the wiffleball pitch of a rejoinder. I love nice slow throws right over homeplate.
Your assumption is that anybody responsible would actually care a whit about the tender “feelwings” of an adult homosexual as weighed against the potential for catastrophic sexual abuse of the boys putatively put in his charge. The psychic harm of flatly turning away homosexual men as BSA leader is neither cruel nor “unfair”. What it is, is quite simply, the right thing to do if you care about the kids.
If the BSA needs a hatchetman to disappoint gay men who want to be leaders, let the burden fall to me. People like me have the fortitude and certainty of ethical priorities that protection of the youth is Job One.
To do anything less is to facilitate an open season by predators on our boys. Or, what I suspect is the real agenda here, since the PC crowd knows full well that sensible parents won’t allow their boys to stay in the BSA if this policy moves forward. That agenda is the same one that removed creches from town squares and any mention of God from public schools: The destruction of traditional American culture.
That’s the real goal here.
Destroy scouting. Destroy religion. Destroy Christian values. Destroy the military. Destroy our traditional symbols of unity: flag, prayer, and civic holidays.
Oh, the other wiffleball pitch of yours, about the priests. That’s easy too: No gay priests. The trendy US Church let this slide for 40 years, turned a blind eye, and ordained hundreds of predators seeking 3 squares a day, a place to sleep, and lots of innocent victims served up on a platter behind the sacristy.
No anti-gay pogrom is called for by us. I love gay people. I feel sorry for them. I pray for them and have many as friends and colleagues.
No pogrom. But what you do is simply and…
January 31st, 2013 | 2:57 pm
[...] etc. But sometimes, the old adage is true – a picture speaks a thousand words. I came across the photo below when reading an article in First Things yesterday. Look at it. The image exudes goodness [...]
January 31st, 2013 | 3:48 pm
David, It’s almost laughable to have to explicate the point to you, that a man who engages in homosexual behavior is a homosexual.
Norm,
Is a man who never dreamed of having sex with a man before being in prison, had sex with men in prison, and never dreamed of having sex with men once out of prison a homosexual because he committed homosexual acts in prison. It is simply wrong to claim that committing a homosexual act makes a person a homosexual. I have known several gay men who had sex with women. Does engaging in heterosexual acts make a person heterosexual?
And a man who engages in homosexual pedophilia, as did 99.9% of the (very small percentage of priests) sexual abusing priests, is a homosexual predator.
According to the John Jay Report, 3.6% of accused priests were accused of sexually abusing both boys and girls, 22.6% of abusing girls only, 64% of abusing males only, and for 9.8%, the gender of the accuser was not known to those who compiled the report.
Pedophilia is sex with prepubescent children, with the cutoff age of 13. (Different children begin puberty at different times, so the age is less important than the lack of maturity of the victim.) Of all victims of abuse, 27.3% were ages 15-17 years old. So the term pedophilia is inapplicable with them. Another 50.9% of victims were ages 11-14, so pedophilia applies only to part of those instances.
No gay priests. The trendy US Church let this slide for 40 years, turned a blind eye, and ordained hundreds of predators seeking 3 squares a day, a place to sleep, and lots of innocent victims served up on a platter behind the sacristy.
Over half (55.7%) of accused priests were accused of only one incident. Another 26.9% were accused of 2-3. The percentage with 4-9 accusations was 13.9%, and with 10 or more allegations 3.5%. While even one incident was one too many,…
January 31st, 2013 | 4:13 pm
Oh, the other wiffleball pitch of yours, about the priests. That’s easy too: No gay priests. The trendy US Church let this slide for 40 years, turned a blind eye, and ordained hundreds of predators seeking . . .
Abuse allegations peaked with priests ordained in the 1970s and has fallen dramatically ever since. The Vatican prohibited the ordination of men with “deep seated homosexual tendencies” in 2005. If the Church realized the problem was “gay priests” only in 2005, why has abuse by priests decreased so dramatically?
January 31st, 2013 | 5:04 pm
What happened to good old fashioned values and morals?
January 31st, 2013 | 5:20 pm
David, You count the number of angels on the head of a pin, and engage in silly distinctions (about children’s ages) without a difference. Rape is rape. Abuse is abuse. The majority of it against boys is by homosexual acts. And whether that man is a homosexual for 15 minutes, 15 hours, 15 months, or 15 years is of exactly zero importance to the horror of his crime against a child. A bank robber is a bank robber, even during the first 15 seconds of his very first robbery. You are making pointless arguments about what words to use regarding sexual abuse of minors. And seem entranced by stats in a PC-driven Report. But even if we accept your figures and terminology -just for the sake of argument- all your words and stats absolutely support the case for prohibition of gays in scout leadership. You just can’t see it, I guess.
January 31st, 2013 | 6:33 pm
Norm,
You seem to be saying that just because your heart is the right place you can say that 99.9% percent of abusing priests engaged in “homosexual pedophilia,” when the percentage of priests who abused boys was 64%, and a great many of the boys were old enough so that the abuse couldn’t be classified as pedophilia. But there is a difference between 99.9% and 64%—a big difference. And there is a difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia.
Rape is rape.
It’s difficult to disagree with that, but of course offenses ranged everywhere from penetration (in the extreme cases) to inappropriate touching or fondling through clothing. The latter is not rape. It is reprehensible, but it is not rape.
And whether that man is a homosexual for 15 minutes, 15 hours, 15 months, or 15 years is of exactly zero importance to the horror of his crime against a child.
I am not disputing the seriousness of the crimes. I am disputing the idea that a man can be “a homosexual” for 15 minutes.
Facts make a difference, and you got most of yours wrong. Pedophiles, rape, and homosexual have meanings, and if you want to be taken seriously, you don’t use them to mean anything you want them to mean and justify it by claiming to have the right emotional tone.
The John Jay Report was commissioned by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and while it may have its deficiencies, it is the most complete source of information on abuse by Catholic priests.
January 31st, 2013 | 7:50 pm
The John Jay College attempted to explain the deliberate homosexual predation and abuse of adolescent males, the primary victims in the crisis in the Church, as a crime of opportunity and ignored the severe psychological conflicts and grooming behaviors in priests who offended against minors. The data in the John Jay report strongly suggested that homosexual abuse of adolescent males was at the heart of the crisis. A number of well-designed studies have found that men with SSA are more likely to have psychiatric and substance abuse disorders and STDs than heterosexual males, and are more likely to have a positive attitude to sexual relations between adult and adolescent males.(1)
The BSA would benefit from a thorough evaluation of what occurred in the crisis in the Church before changing it position on homosexuals as scout leaders.
(1.) Fitzgibbons, R & Dale O’Leary Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Clergy The Linacre Quarterly 78(3) (August 2011): 252–273.
February 1st, 2013 | 11:15 am
The fact that the lobby has now added to the original four letters to now be “LGBTQA” tells you that this is more about persuading (if not forcing) that a deviant/socially counterproductive lifestyle is somehow “OK”–attempting to slither its way into our moral fabric.
I hope the Scouts (and the SCOTUS) stay strong, and do not bend to flawed thinking.
February 1st, 2013 | 11:26 am
I am very irritated that this is even an issue in Boy Scouts AND in churches. I am not going to tell another person how to live their life. What you choose to do in your home or in public is your own business. But if you choose to JOIN a church or an organization that supports Christian principles, then you should be prepared to come against opposition or be completely excluded if you are doing something that the Bible is clearly against. God made it very clear in the bible that He is against homosexuality. If you choose to be gay or believe you were born gay, whatever….then you shouldn’t be joining Christian organizations and then demanding that they accept you. I DO have a son in cub scouts and although he enjoys the scouting experience, I will pull him out of the program next year if homosexual leaders are allowed. I think it is a mockery to start each pack meeting off with a prayer to God and then say it’s ok to have gay leadership.
February 1st, 2013 | 2:56 pm
I am curious to know if all of the people who have said they will pull their sons out of the Boy Scouts over this matter mean they will do so if the BSA leaves the decision over homosexuality to local groups, or if the BSA leaves the decision to local groups and their local group does not maintain the ban. Will the fact that the national organization and some local organizations don’t ban gay scouts and leaders taint even local organizations that maintain the ban?
It has been noted in the coverage of this development that until a lawsuit in 1974, BSA allowed local organizations to decide whether they would be racially segregated or not. Should parents who were morally opposed to racial segregation have pulled their sons from local organizations that were integrated for the reason that it was immoral for the national organization to permit segregation? I suppose it should come as no surprise that an American organization founded in 1911, even a religious one, was for some time racially segregated. But it does come as somewhat of a shock that it took a lawsuit in 1974—six years after Martin Luther King, Jr., died—to end the segregation.
February 1st, 2013 | 8:34 pm
David, you have erroneously conflated “accusation” with “proof”. My statistics are far more accurate than the “accusation” stat you plucked from the discredited Jay Report. The priest sexual abuse scandal was actually a homosexual scandal by that segment of priests who chose to hide in plain sight in the convenient role of priest. It gave such predators the position of trust and power over their victims. Just like the role of scoutmaster and adult leader does in the BSA.
The clinical parsing you engage in about what labels to use regarding child rape appear to me to be an attempt to minimize the inherent cruelty and violence of the crimes. I suggest if you want to be taken seriously, that you acknowledge the gravity of pedophilia – at any age of a minor’s young life.
Lastly, discrimination is up to the private organization, it’s their club, their rules. We’ve all been discriminated against in one way or another. As a practicing Christian, I was turned down as a volunteer for a jewish Big Brother program. Did I stomp and wail and clench my fist at my local jewish community friends? Of course not. I respected their choice to run their BB program in whatever way they saw best for them. Gays need to do the same. Respect our choice to protect our boys, and quit making this discussion about “them”. The organization exists to serve boys. Not the adults!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact