Boy Scouts of America: At least 92,000 have filed sex abuse claims against the Boy Scouts

[stpurl]

Recently both the Washington Post and the New York Times announced a huge number of suits being filed against the Boy Scouts.

What is puzzling is that the abuses were covered up for decades in order to protect the good name of the organization; that the leaders were in a position of authority over the youngsters they abused. . .

But that in all the cases none of the abusers had taken a vow of celibacy.

In fact, while people are frantically castigating Catholic priests over sexual abuse and attributing it to the priests being ‘forced into celibacy’ and demanding that priests marry as if the celibacy causes the abuse. . .

The Scout leaders were either married themselves or perfectly free to marry. . .yet they abused to a degree that actually dwarfs the abuse attributed to Catholic priests.

Make no mistake. Even one case of abuse is one too many. This is not ‘whataboutism’ as if abuse by one organization makes abuse in another less bad. It does not.

However, the clarion calls that the abuse was due to the Church’s ‘cockeyed celibacy’ requirement is surely refuted, categorically, by the news from the Scouts. Dontcha thinK?

 

[JanR]

This is a shame! My father was in the Boy Scouts, and nothing like that occurred (if it did, he never mentioned it.). He learned a lot of positive skills. I suspect a few really bad apples have spoiled the whole barrel. Really, too bad.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The Scout leaders were either married themselves or perfectly free to marry. . .yet they abused

Unfortunately, we can point this out till we’re blue in the face and somebody will still insist that forced celibacy causes men to go nuts and abuse children and teens. It’s a classic example of “My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts.”

Having said that, there may be some truth to the idea that the celibacy requirement of the priesthood attracted some abusers, either because they thought it would make a good cover for abuse, or because they thought it would somehow force or encourage them to give up their perversions (which generally doesn’t work).

 

[stpurl]

That may be true. Or not. The fact is, of course, that some heterosexual priests abuse women, despite their vow of celibacy. So actually it is not the nature of heterosexuality in and of itself to cause an individual to abuse, and it isn’t the nature of homosexuality in and of itself to cause an individual to abuse. It isn’t the nature of marriage to cause an individual to abuse, and it isn’t the nature of CELIBACY to cause an individual to abuse.

What this report shows is not that heterosexuality, homosexuality, marriage, celibacy, ‘positions of authority’, ‘institutions with good names’ etc ‘lend themselves to a culture of abuse. . .

But rather that despite an institution’s having ‘a good name’, despite the responsibilities of ‘people in authority’, and despite the expectation that people in same ‘do the right thing’, people as individuals will sometimes do the wrong thing. And frankly they would do so (and have done so) despite any ‘safeguards’ set in place.

We can’t blame ‘celibacy’ or ‘the Church” or ‘The Scouts’ for sexual abuse itself as a whole. . .or any of the other factors.

We can blame the individuals who abuse.

No, we aren’t perfect people and we aren’t a ‘perfect culture’ but it was ‘good intentions’ from society as a whole, and not just’ The Church” or “The Scouts’ which led to the early ‘protections’. And it was not simply protection of ‘the institution’ but protection of the abused. People who are not over 60 and did not actually live through the 60s on do not fully realize what the world was like then. There has been a major shift in societal thinking and no, Virginia, it was neither ‘much better than’ or ‘much worse than’ today’s society. But you simply cannot put the mores and understanding of AD 2020 (shudders) onto a person in AD 1960.

It is however extremely interesting that after a very VOCAL thread impugning celibacy that so FEW people are commenting on the Scouts. My my my.

I guess I did ‘confuse them with facts”.

 

[BT3241]

These are devious people they seek out and look for positions that give them contact with children I have seen police charged.If they don’t have a record hard to catch them - they must of had background checks and police record checks - you would think so. Celibacy does not turn you into a homosexual or cause you to become a child molester - its already in the person.

If I go a year celibate is it going to turn me into a homosexual and a child molester - no.

 

[gam197]

What this report shows is not that heterosexuality, homosexuality, marriage, celibacy, ‘positions of authority’, ‘institutions with good names’ etc ‘lend themselves to a culture of abuse.

I am curios as to the cases themselves… Are these older cases or cases up to today. If they are older cases, why has this all come out after all these years? Why not in prior years? The original number was less but still very bad.

April 2019, court testimony indicated that the organization believed more than 7,800 of its former leaders had sexually abused at least 12,000 children since the late 1940s.

.In July 2015, Gay adults were allowed to become leaders so are there any statistics on these cases.

Any statistics on how many boys were in Boy Scouts over the years? If there are 2.3 million Boy Scouts currently, does that mean there were 100 million Boy Scouts over the last 50 years.

 

[Sarcelle]

priests being ‘forced into celibacy’

Celibacy being a part of priesthood is not exactly a secret. The men who volunteer for priesthood know exactly what they were getting into.
It’s not like men were being kidnapped and ordained against their will. If this happened, the phrase “forced into celibacy” is indeed true.

However these men are being ordained knowing full well what they were getting into.

Having said that, there may be some truth to the idea that the celibacy requirement of the priesthood attracted some abusers, either because they thought it would make a good cover for abuse, or because they thought it would somehow force or encourage them to give up their perversions (which generally doesn’t work).

Is it the celibacy requirement that attracts them or is it the position of authority that does? Priests have a sort of spiritual authority over their parishioners, teachers over their students, Boy Scout leaders over their troops and coaches over athletes.

It seems like sociopaths are attracted to positions of authority where they can inflict their abuse and their position protects them since their victims are less likely to be believed due to having lesser status.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I don’t think all sexually abusive priests are sociopaths. A sociopath is defined as someone who has an extreme antisocial attitude and lacks a conscience. Some clergy sexual abusers seem to have a conscience because they self-report even when victims haven’t come forward, and thus open themselves up to a bunch of punishment that they maybe could have skipped by just keeping quiet.

So, just like any other group of sexual abusers, some clergy are probably in denial, some are probably sociopaths, and others have a conscience and feel shame over their actions.

I’m willing to bet there are all kinds of reasons they became priests also. Some probably thought it would be a good cover or give them access to victims, others might have thought it would keep them from offending, others might have just gone along with some relative’s wish that they become a priest.

In any event, the idea of “men didn’t have a permitted sexual outlet so they abused” doesn’t hold water.

 

[Sarcelle]

Good point.

 

[Victoria33]

A few years ago, the BSA announced they’d have gay scoutmasters or something like that and I looked up the state organization and they had an area where one could report abuse. They certainly didn’t last long but I’m sure some of these cases go back decades.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m certain they’ve had plenty of gay scoutmasters and probably some gay scouts since the organization was started. The only difference is that prior to about 2015, they couldn’t have openly gay scoutmasters or scouts. You would have to be in the closet to participate, because gay leaders and members were banned on paper.

 

[JanR]

It seems like sociopaths are attracted to positions of authority where they can inflict their abuse and their position protects them since their victims are less likely to be believed due to having lesser status.

And that’s where the greatest injustice lies. These “lesser” status victims not being believed. They are discriminated against simply because of their lesser status. While we’re supposed to trust authority, we also need to carefully scrutinize authority. With authority comes a greater responsibility to earn the greater trust. Because they have power, they shoulder the greater expectation to not abuse that power.

We as a society, and also our judicial system have the shameful and wrong tendency to nearly always blame the victims. That has to change.

On the other hand, accusations need to be thoroughly and UNbiasedly investigated, because people in authority have been wrongly accused and their lives destroyed.

Investigations must be conducted with the sincere, good-faith intention of getting to the truth, wherever it takes them, and these kinds of investigations must NOT be manipulated to favor a preferred outcome.

Fundamental fairness demands this.

 

[Sarcelle]

Well said.

That’s part of the evil of this world. The divorce of responsibility and privilege with regards to authority.
I know it’s cliche, but with power comes responsibility.

 

[stpurl]

Yes, it’s a puzzlement.

If the sex abuse in the Catholic Church is due to a ‘clericalism and coverup’ due to priests not having a ‘sexual outlet’, then how does one explain the abuse in the Boy Scouts?

The same kind of ‘coverups’ existed, and for far longer, than in the Catholic Church. The scout leaders all had ‘sexual outlets’ being either married or not having ‘vowed celibacy’. And if there was a culture of ‘wanting to keep the organizations good name’ it was certainly not ‘clerical’ in the sense that so often is used, a kind of ‘we’re better than the ‘laity’. Scout leaders, like priests, came ‘from’ the laity. If it’s about ‘positions of authority’ then those go across the board. . .clerics, scout leaders, teachers, and yes, above all parents.

The whole thing though is that since there is such an incredible difference in the perpetrators themselves, why has this not blazed through the MSM the way the “priest abuse scandal’ did?

Why are there not questions? “Hey, if the whole priest abuse was all about celibacy leading the priests to abuse, then why did so many non-celibate Scout leaders abuse?

If we are trying to get some answers to STOP sex abuse, why aren’t there people out there saying, “All you people who blame celibacy for abuse, you can shut up now. Obviously that has nothing to do with the root cause. If both celibate and non celibate are abusing, there is some common denominator out there and THAT is what you should be chasing down.”

So what is the common denominator?

If it is ‘authority’ then we are SUNK because the whole basis of society is the family where we have authorities (parents) and those subject to the authorities (children). We have authorities (teachers, scout leaders, priests, and other adults) and those subject to them (children).

But if it is not about sex freedom, and it isn’t about authority per se, then what if it’s about SIN?

What if it’s all about an individual—any individual, man, woman, old, young, rich, poor, black, white- who decides that he or she wants to have some kind of power—the poor to force someone else to do something FOR THEM?

Because we all do that all the time. We want mommy to pick up our toys, not to pick them up ourselves. We want our teachers to give us good grades even if we have done little or no work. We want others to admire us and praise us.

If we use right reason we look at what we want, and then we (having been taught from the beginning by our parents and other authorities) try to learn how to do good things in order to receive good as well. We want mommy’s smile and ‘well done’ so we pick up the toys even if we don’t want to do it. In time, we FEEL the good of having ‘done well’ even if we don’t hear it. We try to do our best work so we get the best grade. We want to have friends so we try to be the kinds of friends we would like to have.

That’s how it should work. Over the last few decades though people have ‘cut through that’ and instead decided to just ‘take what they want’. They learned evil and boy have they acted on it.

 

[Cathoholic]

This is a shame! My father was in the Boy Scouts

An absolute shame!

 

[Cathoholic]

The whole thing though is that since there is such an incredible difference in the perpetrators themselves, why has this not blazed through the MSM the way the “priest abuse scandal’ did?

Because the perpetrators are homosexual sexual deviants and homosexuality in the mainstream media, is a proverbial “protected class” in my opinion.

The media attacked the Church but tried to hide the “objective disorder” responsible.

When the media went after the Church (but protected the homosexuals as much as they could), they attempted to fool people by using terms like “pedophile” even though many of the homosexuals did not fit into that catagory.

Ephebophile (homosexuals being preoccupied with adolescents) was another spoof term used from the media back then.

If I recall correctly, Pat Coffin when he interviewed Milo, explained why the media was so “homosexual protective”.

(Self-preservation was his response.)

Pat gave the figures on people in the mainstream media, who belong to a given homosexual activist organization (I can’t recall which one).

The figures were staggering.

This suggested to me at least, if they (the media elite) are not homosexuals themselves, they are at least “gay” activists.

Now with the boy scouts victimized by homosexual men (and bisexual men) they just ignore it compared to the homosexual crisis within the Church (which they did not ignore).

 

[MarysLurker]

But that in all the cases none of the abusers had taken a vow of celibacy.

In fact, while people are frantically castigating Catholic priests over sexual abuse and attributing it to the priests being ‘forced into celibacy’ and demanding that priests marry as if the celibacy causes the abuse.

That is an excellent point, and it proves that a good deal of the “outrage” against the Church over abuse isn’t really about abuse at all.

 

[MarysLurker]

huge number of suits being filed against the Boy Scouts

These aren’t actually lawsuits, but rather claims against the Scouts’ bankruptcy estate in the course of the Scouts’ Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The Scouts filed for bankruptcy (after strategically tying up some of their key assets like Philmont) in order to create a point of repose which would bar all future abuse lawsuits before the bankruptcy. The huge number therefore may or may not be the actual number, as not everyone is necessarily aware of the bankruptcy and the need to file before time runs out or be forever barred from suing.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The whole thing though is that since there is such an incredible difference in the perpetrators themselves, why has this not blazed through the MSM the way the “priest abuse scandal’ did?

Several reasons:

1. A lot of men now in well-off or even powerful positions were in Scouts and are protective of it. The same can’t be said for the Catholic priesthood.
2. A lot of people hate religion and/ or the Church, many more than hate the Boy Scouts.
3. A lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea of sexual abstinence and can’t fathom how anyone could do without sex and not be warped. People are this way mostly because they’ve never properly learned self-control, and instead of seeing it as self- discipline they think of it as against nature, or as being associated with people who have psychological hangups, or prissy moral authorities giving unfair punishments for “dirty” behavior. Strangely enough, if it’s a Buddhist monk going without sex, people admire it and think he is really getting somewhere spiritually.

 

[gam197]

A lot of good points. How about women teachers, either straight or lesbians, case after case of abuse of children placed under their care and no one notices or if they notice, turn away and put it into perspective of how many students go through the school system. Just not an issue, still goes on rampartly.

Also we saw in the Catholic Church in Boston that one bad priest could molest hundreds of boys. There were lots of good priest but no one took notice. The bad ones, they were predators always looking for an opportunity.

What I find interesting also there was a time on these forums you could not discuss this or mention “gay” without hundreds of back and forth responses so why has that changed?