Deneke was reported to the police.

More ironically, they do not allow gays to be scout leaders, even though pedophilia is not linked in any way to sexual orientation (Jerry Sandusky is a heterosexual married man).

Agreed.

Pedifiliers seek out positions such as Boy Scout leaders, Catholic Church Priests, Rabis, soccer coachers etc... Where they are around their prey. It's not that these people become pedifiliers while serving their community...

A pedifiler becomes a Boy Scout leader....not a boy scout leader becomes a pedifiler.

Couldn't agree more, I wouldn't have let my kids attend either. If anyone was surprised by this you should get your head out of the sand.

And what was the outcome?

@Long Time Resident...please provide back up references for your comment. The "same thing" has certainly NOT happened with the Girl Scouts. When I Google GS and child molestation, ONE news story pops up from 2008 where a woman, who happened to be a GS leader for only 2 months, had kept a boy captive in her home for over a year.

why the truth hurts!!!!!

Of all the arrogant, condescending and juvenile reactions to a post. You know, it's amazing to me that someone 'non-pukey' like yourself, Mr. Mindnich, who after all of the facts regarding pedophilia that have come to light within the worldwide Catholic church would fail to see the similarities between the church and the scouts as Nucky aptly pointed out. For you to actually "defend' this organization/business is unconscionable and one can only surmise that you are not so passively complacent with what disgusting evil has transpired within those walls.
Let's face real facts: When it comes to hiding pedophilia and protecting the victimizers, the Catholic hierarchy have it down to a science that they have perfected for centuries and do it better than almost any other organization.
Your whining and name-calling someone who seems to be calling a ‘spade a spade’ has shown who on this thread might have the corner on “gutless pukey” moral sensibilities.
By the way, as a born, raised and educated Catholic myself, I know that you don’t get to heaven by defending and supporting the mother church, but more like by not supporting or defending the abusers (ie the mother church).

While I agree that we need to "watch" our children....should I sit on the side line of every practice that my children attend for sports when they are at an age that doesn't require it? I entrust my children to their coaches and teachers, leaders of other activities, etc. and if we go on the premise you suggest, should I accompany my kids to college? I don't care it was 40 years ago or 40 minutes ago. The notion that reporting is different now is ludicrous....ask the victims of Sandusky and I'm sure they would beg to differ.

as far as I know even fourty years ago it was wrong not to report to the parents that their 12 year old boy was raped by a scout leader. It was the local scouting district which decided not to report.

Stacie - You should not HAVE to sit and " watch " your kids at practice to protect them. You should WANT to watch them as a PARENT.

That is a lovely ideological suggestion, Scondo, but not at all realistic. While there are certainly 'negligent' parents out there - parents who leave their children in the care of virtual strangers or unattended by any trusted adult - to point the finger of blame at parents in this scenario is a VERY slippery slope. As a child advocate, I can tell you that by and large, child victims of sexual abuse do not become victims because of a parent's negligence. That drastically and dangerously oversimplifies this topic. Speaking as a mother of FOUR children, I can tell you that in order to function in the world, in order to allow my children a life, with experiences that nurture them and help facilitate their growth and development, leaving them in the care of others at times is necessary. My eldest, for example (a 5th grader) not only goes to school, but takes a music lesson, attends CCD and plays competitive and rec sports year-round. Would you suggest that I accompany him to the above...with his three siblings in tow? Come on.

And as for 'Slobo's indignant remark directed at Stacie, about what one "should WANT" to do as a parent...I can tell you that I no more "want" to stay at my child's practice than I "want" to ride the bus with him, nor "want" to monitor him on the playground during recess. And that, my friend, does not translate into not 'protecting' my child, but rather it demonstrates an acceptance of the situations in which I actually CAN.

I would hardly consider dropping my kids off at practice as saddling a babysitter. Also, having four kids, I can't be in four places at once. The fact that kids in college are adults is irrelevant based on your initial post. What's your take on said adults who were violated at Penn State?

How do we prepare children to be adults?

My holding their hands 24/7 365 days for 18 years or by knowing what they are capable of and giving them a chance to do even more. We teach them to be independent by gradually letting them take care of themselves.

There are now adults so coddled and over protected as children that take their parents to college for the whole freshman orientation weekend and mom's that call HR departments when their delicate flower doesn't get that great job after college.

Wait - I thought you said "never ever leave your child alone with anyone". Do "baby sitters" not qualify as "anyone"??

I can tell you that my husband, who has volunteered as a coach several times, has NEVER regarded his role as that of a 'babysitter'. Instead, when he or I volunteer in the capacity of a coach, CCD instructor or any other that involves having other children in our care, we take the RESPONSIBILITY very seriously. We are there to instruct these children & ANY worthwhile adult in that role recognizes that yes, when the parents of these children leave for the duration of a practice or class, etc, our FIRST responsibility is to PROTECT & ensure the SAFETY of those children. It's quite simple. Any "volunteer coach" who perceives his role any differently or who takes exception to that fact, ought not volunteer!

Totally agree with your assessment of the current policies. Two Deep / Never alone are inviolate in the Scout Program today. Scouts /parents and leaders all receive public instruction during the first organizational meeting of the year. Scout Leaders must take an on line course in youth protection and have their credential renewed periodically.
@ Stacie, If you are speaking of the Sandusky victims the were 12,10,12,12,11,12, 10, 7 , "a boy" and 10 when they met Sandusky---they were under no one's definition adults . My take on the situation there is that he was a consumate predator and that the investigation is still ongoing and that more victims will be identified as there appears to have been a connection between him and others associated with the Charity he established being involved in abuse. I understand that the parents of those children were largely disadvantaged single mothers and they allowed the children to go along with him to allow them some advantage they might not otherwise be able to have. Understandable under the circumstances but in hindsight not a real good idea. Now as to your not being able to be everywhere because you have four children --that is really your issue--- and you ought not to try and shift it off to others.

Don't waste our electrons if you don't know the story ...

Paterno fired "the suspected pedophile" in 1999 ... who had been investigated and was not prosecuted earlier in 1999. This happened several years before the incident that brought all of this to the surface. When Paterno was asked what to do by the witness in 2001, he directed the witness to tell what he saw to the head of the police force and the athletic director who was responsible for "the pedophile's" access to Penn State facilities. That's not a cover up by Paterno!

This was hidden from the Penn State Board of Trustees by the head of the police, the athletic director, the President, and the university's legal counsel. The reason why the BoT came under fire was their firing of Paterno when it was clear that he had the witness report what he saw directly to the police. Paterno was chosen to be the scapegoat.

I could give you much more detail, but I don't want to waste the electrons!

In a word.... BULL!!!

1) Paterno was amongst the group of officials who specifically chose not to report Sandusky;

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-07-12/Sandusky-Freeh-report-Paterno/56182030/1

2) Paterno lied to a grand jury over what he knew about Sandusky:

Question to Paterno: "Other than the [2001] incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?"

Paterno: "I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it. You did mention -- I think you said something about a rumor. It may have been discussed in my presence, something else about somebody. I don't know. I don't remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a rumor."

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8160430/college-football-joe-paterno-enabled-jerry-sandusky-lying-remaining-silent

Paterno waited to report Sandusky because he didn't want to ruin anyone's weekend! Paterno wanted to make sure Sandusky was treated "humanely"! Sandusky was the rapist of children, and Paterno was worried about how he would be treated???

Yes, Paterno was one of many in the Penn State hierarchy who failed, and failed miserably... but a scapegoat??? My arse!!!

Hookerman,

#1 - Do us a favor and give us NEWS, not a McPaper & ESPN OPINION pieces. You can say anything in an opinion piece and are not bound by the need for those pesky facts! Freeh's folks didn't interview Paterno. Anything that they have reported about Paterno amounts to hearsay, at best ... which is why this is labeled as an opinion rather than the truth.

#2 - Paterno was aware that "the pedophile" was investigated while a member of Paterno's staff. The District Attorney made the decision that there was not enough evidence to prosecute. While our legal system considers people in this situation to be innocent, Paterno soon fired "the pedophile" ... and spent a grand total of 5 minutes at his "retirement party". Paterno had no control over the deal that was cut by the athletic director (Curley) and approved by the president (Spanier) that gave "the pedophile" access to the facilities.

Does this make Paterno guilty? I don't think so. I've fired individuals often and didn't give them the real reason for their firing. I DO think that Paterno did the same. Does this make him a bad man? I don't think so. We often have to act without conclusive evidence. When Paterno had the chance, he did act.

In 2001, he wasn't the witness ... and pointed the witness to the head of the police force (Schultz). What happened after that was out of Paterno's control!

I've seen this type of abuse FIRST HAND. I wouldn't defend Paterno if I felt that he could have done anything more to prevent it. The bottom line is that he did all that he could.

If you were so concerned about the abused children, why aren't you demanding the investigation of the Second Mile foundation and its wealthy pedophile backers?

The isolated incidents with the Boy Scouts is nothing to what happened at Second Mile! Second Mile was a "feeding ground" for wealthy, well-connected pedophiles in PA. PA Governor Corbett was the guy behind making Paterno the scapegoat. Corbett was the Attorney General who only assigned one investigator to the case ... causing it to be delayed until he was elected. Someone SHOULD be doing a cross match of prominent donors to both Corbett and Second Mile. That would be interesting reading. Corbett chose Paterno because he didn't want people to "follow the money" in the scandal!

While I think that the guilty should fry, I want to protect the innocent ... and keep justice from trampling the innocent bystanders. I see Paterno as one of those innocent bystanders!

First of all, it’s always amusing when one poster criticizes another’s sources when he has provided ZERO sources himself. For example, what source tells you that Paterno ever fired Sandusky? Sandusky retired as defensive coordinator from Penn State in 1998, but was given a special emeritus position that still allowed him full access to the college’s recreational facilities.

Secondly, emails show that Paterno was involved in the decisions not to report Sandusky after the 2001 incident. This is counter to his claim that he was not involved in the incident at all after he initially reported it to his superiors. Paterno’s position as head coach in the university was very powerful, so he was hardly an “innocent bystander”.

Lastly, how is Paterno the scapegoat when everyone involved up to the president of the university was fired from their position, and two of the people have charges filed against them? No one has said that Paterno is guilty of a crime, but he certainly doesn’t escape the list of those culpable in this travesty.

Your issue with time scheduling you children is always your responsibility. Trying to engage others in taking part of that by becoming your de facto child care provided is selfish. Volunteer child activity leaders and coaches are not your unpaid baby sitters, as much as you would like to have it be with your lame excuse that you can't possibly arrange 4 schedules. btw you were the one who referred to the PSU victims as adults, I was merely correcting your mistake. Regarding the parents, what I was suggesting, a point that went over your head entirely, was that parents need to be vigilant to protect the children from predation and that means being there. Something you on a personal level think should not apply to you because you chose to have 4. In the PSU situation it is understandable because the children were disadvantaged, their parents wanted to provide an otherwise unattainable benefit. Sandusky knew this and I believe he set up the charity to give him and his cohorts a steady stream of boys for sex. The investigation continues and goes into other areas . I am sure those parents feel betrayed and guilt, the lesson is boldly stated watch your child at all times

@Scondo - How many children do you have?

i am a volunteer soccer coach for special needs children. some parents stay but some go run errands while practice is gonig on. i in absolutely no way think the parents are taking advantage of me or using me as a babysitter when they leave. i understand it is challenging raising children ecspecially special needs children. part of the reason i enjoy volunteering is helping out the parents, during our two hour practice they can go food shopping, the bank, other errands that is more difficult with a couple kids, hell even if they just want an hour to relax and read a book i have no problem with that. it is what i signed up for and i kind of take it as a compliment that they feel safe leaving their kids with myself and other coaches.

I was a Girl Scout when I was child. Some times my mother was troop leader, some times she was not. It was absolutely normal for parents to leave their kids at the meetings. It would have been chaos if they all stayed. To many chiefs and not enough Indians if you get what I am saying.

What about sleep away camp? What about preparing our children to go out in the world and take care of themselves, we will not live forever. I prefer to gradually got the apron strings, rather than one day saying to her, "Here you are 18, all grown up, not drive yourself to work."

When I started babysitting I took a class at the hospital with my best friend. After class we went outside to get picked up (yes my mom dropped us off). There was man out that that set off our spider sense and we went back into the building. We had enough experience to do that. We had that experience because our moms let us walk to school without adults hovering over us. When I was 10 it was my responsibility to get up, eat breakfast, pack a lunch and get to the pool by 7:00 am every day for swim team practice. I then spent the rest of the day at the pool not coming home until dinner or bad weaner.

When I was in college a aquintaince tried to go to far with me. He was rewarded with a knee between the legs and never bothered me again. All because my parents raised me to take care of myself without being terrified of the world.

Don't we want self sufficient, confident, resourceful children?

You’re missing the point that sexual orientation and pedophilia have nothing to do with each other. Sandusky preyed on boys because they were the ones most readily available to him. Priests preyed on boys because they were the ones most readily available to them. People trying to blame the church’s problem on homosexual priests were way off the mark (even the current pope admitted this).

The BSA’s policy of banning gay leaders because they are more likely to molest the scouts is an antiquated and incorrect belief. If homosexual males are not allowed to be Boy Scout leaders, then why are heterosexual females allowed? Certainly we’ve seen instances of women having sex with underage males. The BSA should concentrate on recruiting leaders who won’t molest kids, regardless of the leader’s gender or sexual orientation.

I am not blaming what happened at PSU on anyone other than Sandusky, I am however making the point that parents have a non delegable duty to watch over their children in these situations.

@Hookerman, the BSA policy is not limited to Gay leaders, it includes Homosexual scouts. why?.? Because it is kind of difficult to explain to a parent that their 11 or 12 year old was inveigled into fellating a 17 year old homosexual scout. And that is the more common occurrence that no one wants to talk about. So when a homosexual scout comes out and acknowledges his homosexuality he is asked to leave.

For someone who could care less , you go to unusual lengths to justify your actions .

Scondo, if your scenario is such a “common occurrence”, then please link some examples of it. The fallacy in your argument is that if a scout wanted to prey on other scouts, then he wouldn’t “come out”, since he would know that doing so would remove him from his prey. However, since boys usually become involved in scouting long before their sexual orientation is established, it is unlikely that this would be the motivation of a scout in the first place. And if that scenario is such a risk, the all youth groups that are co-gender should be banned.

In short, your unfounded fears are the same as those who resisted repealing DADT in the military expressed. Now, almost two years later, even the generals who were the biggest opponents to repealing DADT are admitting that there have been no problems with it. The BSA needs to take their cue from the military, and realize that their policy is stupid and antiquated.

In reviewing the Deneke files I don't believe for one second that anyone in any official capacity with the BSA told him to "go find another troop", this case was dealt with swiftly from the troop committee, to the Pastor at St. Catharine's, the local authorities, the local Ridgewood-Glen-Rock Scout Executives and National Leadership.

If it was ever said, it must have been a comment to get him to stop creeping around the troop. The man is obsessed with Troop 27 in Glen Rock.

The only failure I see was the doctor treating him recommending that he be permitted back to scouting because he was 90% cured. The BSA and Monsignor Holmes to their credit said no way.

To me its a text book case of the organization doing the right thing every step of the way, even during a time when these matters did not get the same attention and treatment they do today.

Unfortunately Steve , yours is fairly typical of the reactions gotten. In 1998, a report was made to the civil authorities regarding a molestation case of Jerry Sandusky, the civil authorities did nothing to prosecute , Sandusky was allowed to negotiate his retirement in 1999. His retirement package included access to the practice fields and allowed him use of an office at Penn State. it was negotiated by the higher officials of Penn State and his attorneys through Second Mile. In 2008 there was a report dealing with Sandusky and molestation, it was made to the civil authorities who deemed it unprovable, telling the victim, now known as Victim #1 that they needed corroboration, it was not until 2012 that they prosecuted.

Journey - I don't think that "everyone here that thinks we should not drop our kids off at scouting meetings and soccer practice.” I assume that you are not a parent, right?

Ultimately, the responsibility of our childrens safety falls on us, the parents. First, we must do our best to teach our children not to put themselves into situations that may be dangerous. And if they find themselves in such a situation, they must know how to get out of it. This is one reason my girls study Tae Kwon Do. They must know what is appropriate contact and conduct, and what is not. They must always feel that they can come to us whenever there is a problem, and that we'll do everything we can to protect them. And they must understand that if something bad happens to them, it is not their fault, and we still love them unconditionally.

Having said that, there is a reasonable expectation of security that we place in those who oversee our children in our absence. Be it a teacher, scoutmaster, coach, or whatever, we expect their governing bodies (school, scout council, etc…) to do their part in ensuring that measures have been taken to protect the kids. “Two Deep” leadership, background checks, and other “common sense” safeguards are all good practices. But as a parent, I retain “veto power” to override anything that I feel endangers my kids.

(continued)
To “cut the cord” implies that we just let them loose to fend for themselves. This is not how it works. As a parent, I slowly give my kids more freedom as they show the responsibility of being able to handle it. As they mature, and know how to deal with situations, they will receive less supervision. But no matter how old they get, I will always worry, just like my parents still worry about me. It comes with the territory…

Wait - was it a different 'Scondo' who previously stated:

"Parents need to be cognizant of the idea that they to need to be aware that they should not just drop off children and leave. We had a pediatrician who used to tell us never ever leave your child alone with anyone..."

And:

"My own feeling is that you ought not to be dropping off and leaving your children when they are prepubscent, but that is just me. Also there is a nother reason, why should I saddle a volunteer coach , etc with being my baby sitter."

That pretty clearly answers #1.

No, Scondo, I do not "just drop off my children and leave". How is that question a response to what I posted??

Your previous posts did not condemn parents who "just drive up, fling the door open and tell your child : "see you later". Your previous posts judged & condemned parents for what you perceive as "trying to engage others in taking part of that by becoming your de facto child care provided is selfish. Volunteer child activity leaders and coaches are not your unpaid baby sitters..." because according to you, parents "ought not to be dropping off and leaving your children when they are prepubscent".

If your intention was to distinguish between parents who 'dump' their children without any due diligence or responsibility in taking all REASONABLE precautions to be sure their child is being left in capable hands in a SAFE environment, then perhaps you should have clarified that in the first place.

Scondo, how does directly quoting your posts translate into what I "think was written"??

It doesn't. No more than engaging in a debate & calling you (or anyone) out on ignorant, judging comments is picking "a fight". You're awfully quick to identify for the rest of us our "issues", and yet, I've yet to see someone respond to you in kind.

Apart from being completely inaccurate, your "sense" that I am "insecure in my parenting style" is based in nothing. I am far from being a perfect parent, however, my parenting style is something about which I have great conviction. Enough conviction and maturity to not be so presumptuous as to dictate to others what they "should" and "should not" do. I asked you a simple question. At what point did I state or even infer that "having more children allows a parent to slack off in the responsibility area"?? If you want to be taken seriously, don't add insult to injury by defending ignorant comments with 'stuff' you just make up. You have no idea why I may have asked you how many children you have. Making up a reason in your own head, being defensive about it & continuing to attack me only really highlights your insecurity.

And again, please refer me to the post in which I ever stated to "think parents should just drop off their children and leave".

Ummm...I did in fact read what was written...at least twice now, considering you repeated the same exact statement. If it was meant to be a question, then proper punctuation would be the only way to communicate such.

Do you even realize that you completely gloss over your previous posts?? You're qualifying those statements now, which is fine, if you would simply drop the self-righteous attitude and acknowledge that.

Where do you live that you wouldn't know who you are dropping your children off to?? I can look at a field and identify every coach. I also have all of their cell numbers as they do mine. What kind of bubble do you live in?