Comments on: Priest/Psychologist Apologizes for Blaming Sex Abuse On Victims While Catholic Paper Censors His Offending Remarks

By: iDavid

iDavid — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 09:01:13 +0000

I have to agree with you David Waite. My hit is this priest is trying to cover up in his own mind, his own guilty criminal pleasures he had with a young boy.

He could well be the very devastated one he’s talking about in his own story and very well could have been pursued, and has to blame instead of taking responsibility for not saying “no”.

Telling stories to his own guilty mind if such is true, may very well be his only covert internalized coping mechanism, such being fleeting and frail at best.

I certainly hope I am wrong, but my radar tells me otherwise.

By: jerry

jerry — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 19:54:43 +0000

I was out for a show on Thursday evening and when I got home started looking for a late news broadcast. Anderson Cooper was already airing and I turned it on to see a segment on this story and none of the coverage was sympathetic to the position of the priest. Good to know this is getting coverage beyond the gay and religious press.

By: David Waite

David Waite — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 18:55:16 +0000

From 1981 to 1982 I worked as a crisis counselor at one of NYC’s four city-run rape centers. I also have other professional experience dealing with child molesters. In my lifetime of experiences I have never heard a NON-molester put forward the “seduced by Lolita” meme. I have professionally always found it a sure indicator of a need to investigate the past of any adult who makes such an argument. I’ve found the presence of actual fire under that particular smoke to be a given.

A few months ago, while chilling with my younger brother, a retired math teacher, the issue of pedophile RCC priests entered our conversation as we watched some news about one of them. P— correctly observed that child molesters are present in every profession and are usually preying on children they’re related to. He then questioned whether focusing on RCC priests was a form of anti-RCC prejudice, since Methodist ministers also molested children, along with doctors, lawyers, butchers and bakers.

Why else, he asked, apart from prejudice, do only the RCC priests seem to be demonized about it as a professional class? My answer was simple, and answered (to his complete satisfaction) the genuine question he was asking me about peoples’ actual motives on this issue.

I told him, “P—, the same percentage of all adults molest children, 2.8%. The reason why RCC priests are singled out for public hatred is easy to understand, if you think of this fact, which people generally are well aware of: When a Methodist minister is caught molesting the lambs in his flock he is sent to jail. When a Catholic priest is caught doing the same thing he is sent to another parish. Although there are plenty of cases of fellow professionals initially covering up for doctors and lawyers and Methodist ministers, to protect those covering professionals’ own reputations, eventually the recidivist molester is caught and jailed. The same thing occurs inside families of in-family molesters. But it’s different for priests. In the RCC, when his superiors can no longer cover up for him, the pedophile priest is sent beyond legal jurisdiction to an independent country, The Vatican. There is a difference between retirement in a jail and retirement in Rome, in peoples’ minds.”

Jim, what you illustrated with this column is an example of how the RCC always finds a way to excuse the sinner, as long as he’s been ordained. You write about the Register as if they really were part of the fourth estate, but as long as the word “Catholic” precedes “Register” in their title, they will always choose propaganda over journalism. However well any such religiously founded and supported news organ reports on other stories, if their is a conflict between the journalism credo “to report only the whole truth,” and “support your local living ikon,” they will go with ikonolatry.

By: Plaintom

Plaintom — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 23:14:24 +0000

This reminds me of Akin, a window into the worldview of some truly sick people.

By: Hunter

Hunter — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:03:34 +0000

First, even if the minor is being seductive, there’s a tried-and-true method for dealing with it: “No.” Repeated as often as necessary. If, as we’re told, these priests are grown men, then I don’t think it’s asking too much of them to act like it.

And while I don’t remember particulars, it seems to me that Fr. Benedict is not the first member of the Catholic hierarchy to run this one up the flagpole. Apparently, no one saluted the first time, either.

By: Soren456

Soren456 — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 19:46:54 +0000

A drunk person speaks his truth and then claims next day that it was the alcohol talking.

Groeschel spoke his truth and now claims that it’s the brain damage talking.

If he wants to go there, fine. I’d say it’s the brain damage that LETS him speak his truth. And I’d say further that he has now told us–truthfully–exactly how he has thought about abuse through his whole career, and how he has based his approach to the problem.

I believe that no priest has any business handling instances of abuse, and Groeschel’s truth makes my case.

By: Rowan Bristol

Rowan Bristol — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:22:48 +0000

“What he describes certainly doesn’t apply to most of the abuse cases in the RCC (or elsewhere). It probably does describe some of the cases he encountered in his career as counselor. For some reason, those stuck in his head. Maybe he could relate. To the seduction, not necessarily to abusing a minor.”

The problem is that he has a long history of bad judgement calls in is counseling that make his attitudes even more problematic. He’s actually hurt people with his beliefs.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/857021/posts

By: Regan DuCasse

Regan DuCasse — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:00:09 +0000

No, actually I disagree on going to jail for the first offense.
The problem with sex offenders, and even how our society is still lacking in dealing with the issue rightfully, is they don’t take it as seriously as they should.
The impact on teens, and at this time in their development, can be very dangerous actually.
Their emotional centers are more erratic and confused by the adults around them.
The spectre of pregnancy, in the case of op sex abuse, escalates an already difficult situation.
The gravity of any of this, as we’ve all seen, generates and REVEALS some horrible ignorance about the issue.
The bias itself obviously doesn’t help, but the lack of courage in handling abusive adults properly is just as bad.

By: BobN

BobN — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:40:40 +0000

Later in life, people get more honest (cuz the filters stop working as well and, sometimes, cuz they just don’t care anymore).

What he describes certainly doesn’t apply to most of the abuse cases in the RCC (or elsewhere). It probably does describe some of the cases he encountered in his career as counselor. For some reason, those stuck in his head. Maybe he could relate. To the seduction, not necessarily to abusing a minor.

His “solution” of giving a priest the benefit of the doubt is, of course, wrong. Even if a priest is the object of desire for an 18yo boy, the adult is supposed to resist. Or wait.

By: Jarred

Jarred — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:00:26 +0000

Ben: And that’s the sad part, isn’t it? They’re not necessarily concerned that what was said was actually reprehensible, but only that it “made them look bad.” Sadly, I’ve run into that mentality before.