The BSA Gets It Half-Right

I wasn't going to comment about the decision to allow openly gay boys to become Boy Scouts.  But I've found myself thinking about it, partly because--you guessed it--I was a Scout many, many years ago.

Now, before I talk about the decision, I'm going to share a little story.  I was a Scout for a year or two when the Boy Scouts of America decided to make some changes to the uniform.  Back in the old days, the standard uniform included a flat or "garrison" hat similar to the kind worn by soldiers in many countries.  But, the Boy Scouts' leadership decided to offer other kinds of headgear and allow troops and their leadership to choose.  One of the options was the old-style garrison hat; the others, as I recall, included a visored baseball-type cap (which seems to be what most Scouts wear today) and a red beret.  Most of the boys in my troop voted for the baseball cap, and our Scoutmaster seemed to like it, too.  It was all right but, as you may have guessed, I wanted to wear the red beret.

Anyway, having been a Scout, I can tell you that there have been gay scouts, most likely since the organization's founding.  Back then--and even during the time I was a Scout--one never heard of a boy (or, for that matter, a girl) "coming out" much before the age of twenty.  Matters of sexuality weren't widely discussed in those days; most kids' sexual education consisted of the "facts of life" talk from the parents.  Some kids didn't even get that.

But, of course, gay kids knew that they were somehow different.  Sometimes other kids knew, too, and taunted or even bullied them.  As bad as it could be, it usually wasn't as bad as the treatment the gay (or perceived-to-be-gay) kid got at school, in the community and, sometimes, at home.  Perhaps my view is colored by having had a Scoutmaster who didn't tolerate bullying.

I suspect there were, and are, others like him.  In addition to modeling good behavior, people like him are often the father-figures (or parents) many young people lack.  What about the gay kid who's been kicked out of his home and is living with other relatives--or some place else?  Doesn't he need at least one stable presence in his life?

Now, I haven't forgotten about the sex-abuse scandals that rocked the BSA.  While I'm sure that some men have become Scoutmasters because it gave them easy access to boys, I don't think they were in the majority.  (The same thing could be said about youth-league coaches.)  I think that far more scoutmasters, like the two I had, try to be the guides and role-models that too many young men lack.  

Having been through the sex-abuse scandals, and had to deal with declining membership for at least a decade and a half, the BSA is understandably worried about its image.  I think that might have been the reason why, while voting to allow gay Scouts, they also decided against allowing gay men to become Scoutmasters.  I suppose it was  the BSA's "compromise", or at least an attempt to mollify those parents who, rightly, worry about their kids' safety.  At least, I sort of hope that was their motivation.  Otherwise, they allowed their choice to be guided by a misplaced belief in a mistaken idea that had too long of a shelf life, so to speak.

In other words, if they weren't capitulating to pressure from vocal parents and church groups, BSA's leadership made a decision based on the notion that men who molest boys are gay.  Having been molested as a child--and having talked to others who were--I know how mistaken that notion is.  I know for a fact that one of my molesters never had sexual contact with any post-pubescent male, and was a married man.  I'm almost entirely certain that the other man who molested me also never had any interest in adult males.

But, the ban on gay Scoutmasters does gay Scouts a disservice for another reason.  Lots of boys--gay, straight and otherwise--join because it is one of the few structured environments in which they can be safe and validated. Think of that boy who joined when he was 12 or 13 and, a year or two later, realizes that he's gay. Imagine that he has no adult in his life with whom he can talk about it.  Don't you think that one of the best things that could happen to him would be for his scoutmaster to say, with complete honesty, "I know how you feel."

Now, I'm not saying that only a gay Scoutmaster can give a gay Scout the support he needs at a time like that.  I'm just saying that it's one situation in which a just-out gay kid needs an adult who is true to him or her self--in short, one with integrity.  Plus, if I'm not mistaken, the Scout Oath and Law both mention honesty.

So, the BSA got this issue half-right.  Perhaps one day they'll get it completely right.  

Why Is The Catholic Church Fighting Gay Marriage?

I'm sure you've read--or heard-- Queen Gertrude's observation in Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." 

It's often misquited:  People often move "methinks" from the end to the beginning of that line.  But more important, most people misuse the quote. "Protest", in Shakespeare's time, meant "avow" or "affirm" rather than "object" or "deny".  

Whether it's used as intended or misused, the quote is apt for at least one current situation. Once again, the Catholic Church is spending lots of money and other resources to oppose same-sex marriage.   In fact, earlier this month, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago launched a last-ditch effort to convince the lame-duck Illinois legislature not to legalize unions between people of the same gender. Whether or not his efforts were a factor, the vote in the Land of Lincoln has been delayed and the bill will be re-introduced after the new legislature is seated.

Why do you think the Church is so adamant in its opposition to gay marriage? Well, some will say that it's a matter of Church doctrine.  As it's hardly an area of my expertise--and because I'm sure that my reading of the Bible is very different from that of any member of the College of Cardinals--I'm not going to discuss that.  Those anti-gay priests may well be motivated by what they believe to be divinely-inspired tenets of the faith.

Being a, shall we say, very lapsed Catholic, my view is a bit different.  You might say it's more cynical.  Here goes:  Much of the Church's opposition to same-sex unions is, I believe, a smokescreen.  They have far, far more serious problems to consider right now, including the elephant in the Vatican chambers:  pedophile priests.  

The damage they've done is incalculable.  You begin to realize that when you hear people talking--for the first time--about they experienced two and three decades earlier. When you're a small child, you simply don't have the language or frame of reference to tell anybody about such an ordeal.  I know this from my own life:  I was well into my thirties before I talked about the sexual molestation I experienced as a child.  

For most children--especially altar boys--being sexually abused by a priest  has to be even more devastating than molestation by anyone else because many kids are taught to trust men of the collar even more than they trust any other adult, save perhaps for their own parents.  Even if nobody tells them they should hold priests in such esteem, a lot of kids learn to do so through implication and osmosis.  That is to be expected when you realize that young children are capable of believing and trusting more completely in God or anyone who is supposed to represent Him.

I don't know how many children have been so damaged by priests, but I'm sure that for every one we hear about, there are many, many more.  I don't think the Church will ever die out completely, but I wouldn't be surprised to see dioceses in the United States (and, possibly other countries) go bankrupt and parishes close because of lawsuits on behalf of the victims.  Plus, the church is in trouble in other ways:  It's in decline in much of Europe because the populations of such predominantly-Catholic countries as Spain, France and Italy aren't growing--or, if there is growth, it's in non-Catholic populations.  Plus, people in those countries and the US aren't attending church, or sending their kids to Catholic schools, nearly as much as they have even in the recent past.

And the Church is spending its spending its money to fight gay marriage?

You know what they say about gay marriage:  If you don't believe in it, don't marry a gay person.  Likewise, all the Church has to do is what it's done for 2000 years. More precisely, it doesn't have to start doing what it hasn't done in that time:  perform gay marriages.  Let Illinois and Rhode Island and other states join New York, Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont and the other states that have legalized gay marriage.  As those states are still part of the United States, they still have (at least in law) a separation between Church and State.  So, no matter what laws are passed in those or any other states, no Catholic priest is going to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies--not in the confines of a consecrated church building, anyway.