Scouts And Homosexuality

Persons of all faiths empathize with Catholic friends over the incomprehensible, irresponsible, and reprehensible conduct of a few of their priests regarding their pedophiliac actions. Many lives have been permanently stained by the actions of a few who have betrayed the trust of their faith. The actions of this minority have cast a shadow of mistrust on the legion of loyalist who have live true to their commitments. There are many priests who have served faithfully in obscure roles that have changed lives for the good. Many have consistently served their constituents with compassion and uncompromising character. They deserve not to be stereotyped.

Some church leaders have understandably been criticized for not removing known perpetrators of pedophiliac conduct from roles involving children. Further criticism has been expressed for the guilty not being subjected to civil law before now.

The strong impulse of those so inclined was dramatized by a pedophile who is being considered for parole in an interview on national television. He said, “I can’t say what I will do if released. Along might come some child and I will say, “Hum, I wonder!’.”

Now consider another side of this crime against children. A little consistency doesn’t hurt. While at the same time demands are being made to remove guilty priests demands are being made for the Boy Scouts to involve persons of the same moral persuasion in leadership roles. Duh!

The United States Supreme Court has upheld the right of the Scouts not to allow such persons in leadership roles. Nevertheless, an anti-Scout campaign prospers across America. The Los Angeles City Council, the New York City School Board, in San Francisco anti-Scout movements flourish. Minneapolis, Dade County Florida, Santa Barbara, California, and Farmington, Massachusetts have banned all Scout recruitment and prohibited distribution of Scout materials in schools. Various charities have stopped their support and many public facilities now have prohibitions against use by Scouts.

Isn’t the much demanded tolerance applicable to Scouts?

In many public schools some versions of sex education, under the heading of “family health,” advocate conduct such as practiced by the guilty priests. Curricula materials have been written with the advice of a group called Gay Men’s Health Crisis. This effort to encourage tolerance for those whose lifestyle is different from that of many families of the children has resulted in a number of crimes against children. Little wonder in that part of the instruction is on the safe way to have oral sex.

This is written with awareness that it might not be PC in some circles. It is written as an appeal for consistency. If an act is wrong for a priest it is wrong for everyone. If a priest who engages in pedophiliac conduct should not be allowed to work around children should such a person be allowed to work with Boy Scouts?