Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Prominent Priest Defends Child Sex Abusers, Later Apologizes

Page 1 of 2 [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

01 Sep 2012, 6:13 am

Quote:
...

The Rev. Benedict Groeschel, 79, who hosts a weekly show on the Catholic television network EWTN, originally made the comments in an interview with the National Catholic Register. He also referred to convicted pedophile Jerry Sandusky as a "poor guy."

"People have this picture in their minds of a person planning to -- a psychopath. But that's not the case. Suppose you have a man having a nervous breakdown, and a youngster comes after him. A lot of the cases, the youngster -- 14, 16, 18 -- is the seducer," Groeschel was quoted as saying in the interview, which is no longer available on the paper's website.


...

The interview, billed as a reflection on the 25 years since Groeschel founded the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal order, covered many topics, but Groeschel's comments on child sexual abuse brought it national attention.

"Well, it's not so hard to see. A kid looking for a father and didn't have his own -- and they won't be planning to get into heavy-duty sex, but almost romantic, embracing, kissing, perhaps sleeping, but not having intercourse or anything like that. I's an understandable thing, and you know where you find it, among other clergy or important people; you look at teachers, attorneys, judges, social workers," Groeschel was quoted as saying.

...



Oh, those poor, sexy, old priests! Why won't horny teenage boys leave them alone?
:eew:

source


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


FalsettoTesla
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 536
Location: North of North

01 Sep 2012, 8:14 am

Well, if they were 14, 16, 18 he wouldn't be a paedophile, he'd be a ephebophile.

One thing I would say he has a point on is that paedophiles aren't what people think they are. That is was makes them so insidious, and hard to protect children from. They're not a guy with a dirty raincoat offering kids sweets. Statically he's most likely the child's father, or other close relative/family friend, or his mother/other female relative. People ignore the fact that women can rape and molest as well.

People try to say that 'Oh but that 8-year-old was just asking for it!' are the worst kind of people, in my opinion. Because they can't see the disgusting nature of the person who took advantage of a child. Even if the child was over sexualised, if anything that's only an indication that they have already been abused.

For instance, I was sexually abused quite prolifically as a child, and whenever I liked someone (not in a romantic way, just enjoyed them as a person), or had a male babysitter etc, I would expose myself to them. Does that mean I deserved the subsequent abuse? No.

People are sometimes very stupid, and that's okay. It's not okay when it puts kids in danger.



MjrMajorMajor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jan 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,748

01 Sep 2012, 11:44 am

People who abuse the trust of a child for their own depravity are evil, and someone to try to justify such an action is just as sick and perverse. This world makes me too sad.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Sep 2012, 12:02 pm

Church first, goodness second. When the squeeze is on, circle the wagons and defend the organization. To hell with what is right or wrong.

It is well that the Church is dying slowly. Eventually the Pope will have to tell priests and nuns to make babies.

ruveyn



jojobean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk

01 Sep 2012, 9:39 pm

This a crazy..."poor guy" all these boys keep tempting him? That is crap,
Jerry built The Second Mile puropsely so he could sexually prey on underprivledged boys. Its not like some boy just accidently fell on his junk, no, this was systematic, planned and strategic. He scanned the group of boys for the ones who would not have the self esteem and assertiveness to resist him and seek help. It worked for a long time until he was caught in the act and years later the media picked up on it. If it were not for the media, there would be no justice for those, now, men.

I cant believe that he actually blamed the children for tempting the pedophiles, but ya we are talking about the same church that brought us the inqusistion and the crusades, so ya anything is possible.

Jojo


_________________
All art is a kind of confession, more or less oblique. All artists, if they are to survive, are forced, at last, to tell the whole story; to vomit the anguish up.
-James Baldwin


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

01 Sep 2012, 11:07 pm

FalsettoTesla wrote:
Well, if they were 14, 16, 18 he wouldn't be a paedophile, he'd be a ephebophile.


"Ephebophilia" is a nonsense term really, and it's used to denormalise quite biologically normal and valid feelings. It's quite normal to fancy a biologically mature woman (or man)! Absolutely nothing wrong with that - that's the way our bodies are built and what we respond to. Denying that is bad for us and leads to unhealthy repression. That said, doing anything about it in contravention of the laws of where you live is wrong.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

01 Sep 2012, 11:09 pm

ruveyn wrote:
It is well that the Church is dying slowly.


Only if this were true of all organised religions - Christianity, Islam, Judaism and the rest - and only those who really believed were involved, with everyone else being allowed to go their separate ways and hold any and all beliefs, as long as those beliefs don't cause trouble for others.



FalsettoTesla
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 536
Location: North of North

02 Sep 2012, 10:27 am

Tequila wrote:
FalsettoTesla wrote:
Well, if they were 14, 16, 18 he wouldn't be a paedophile, he'd be a ephebophile.


"Ephebophilia" is a nonsense term really, and it's used to denormalise quite biologically normal and valid feelings. It's quite normal to fancy a biologically mature woman (or man)! Absolutely nothing wrong with that - that's the way our bodies are built and what we respond to. Denying that is bad for us and leads to unhealthy repression. That said, doing anything about it in contravention of the laws of where you live is wrong.


My point was more, the situation he was positing is different from the one he commenting on, in which the victims were aged around 10. Having consensual sex with 17-year-old is illegal in some American states (which I find really strange, but I think I'm just very used to England's age of consent), but is no where near the same level of morally f****d upness as molesting a 10-year-old. But the guy was saying they're pretty much the same thing.

Ephebophilic acts is are an area of moral greyness, someone who is physically mature may or may not be emotionally mature enough to consent. Paedophilic acts are always wrong and inexcusable. I think that anyone who does that to a child should be removed from life.

I guess I should have elaborated more on that.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Sep 2012, 10:50 am

Excuses, excuses. Here is the basic thing. Many priests are just hot to bugger altar boys.

That Catholic Church because of its no marriage no sex rules for priests has become a magnet for sexual perverts.

The solution: married priests with big families and no more nuns.


ruveyn



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

02 Sep 2012, 11:18 am

ruveyn wrote:
Excuses, excuses. Here is the basic thing. Many priests are just hot to bugger altar boys.


We've been saying that for years and we get called bigoted.

ruveyn wrote:
That Catholic Church because of its no marriage no sex rules for priests has become a magnet for sexual perverts.


The Republic of Ireland was an almost fanatically devout Catholic nation for nearly a century since independence from the UK. It was more powerful than the government and held power in all spheres of public life. In a matter of years it's reputation was ruined by a never-ending series of sex abuse scandals. Now the church is in dire straits in Ireland as people have seen through it all and attendance figures have plummeted like no tomorrow.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

02 Sep 2012, 11:22 am

FalsettoTesla wrote:
My point was more, the situation he was positing is different from the one he commenting on, in which the victims were aged around 10. Having consensual sex with 17-year-old is illegal in some American states (which I find really strange, but I think I'm just very used to England's age of consent), but is no where near the same level of morally f**** upness as molesting a 10-year-old.


Yes, the American age of consent is somewhat mixed up. It's a mixture of 16, 17 and 18. And yes, I agree.

It's 14 in several European countries.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

02 Sep 2012, 4:22 pm

Tequila wrote:
FalsettoTesla wrote:
Well, if they were 14, 16, 18 he wouldn't be a paedophile, he'd be a ephebophile.


"Ephebophilia" is a nonsense term really, and it's used to denormalise quite biologically normal and valid feelings. It's quite normal to fancy a biologically mature woman (or man)! Absolutely nothing wrong with that - that's the way our bodies are built and what we respond to. Denying that is bad for us and leads to unhealthy repression. That said, doing anything about it in contravention of the laws of where you live is wrong.


Pronouncing certain activities as ”biologically normal” or not is kind of dicey.

Human sexuality is quite plastic and both biologically and culturally defined…

Whether we're talking about pedophilia, ephebophilia, or whatever, if society defines it as deviant (and harmful) it is deviant (and harmful) in its consequence.


On the other hand, there are tribal cultures in Africa and the South Pacific that do some pretty shocking things with their children by western standards. Within those cultures things we would define as pedophilia are not seen as abusive or unnatural.

Humans are funny animals.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

04 Sep 2012, 11:24 am

Personally, I don't care if the teenager in question was the instigator, the seducer or was simply perfectly happy to be having sex. That's not the point.

The point is that the teenager in question was not in a legal position to consent to any activity, and that priest in question was in a position of trust. There is no excuse for this type of behaviour--nor is there an excuse for an institution which creates the framework within such behaviour is not only possible, but where the risk of it is enhanced.


_________________
--James


alpineglow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,002

04 Sep 2012, 1:02 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Personally, I don't care if the teenager in question was the instigator, the seducer or was simply perfectly happy to be having sex. That's not the point.

The point is that the teenager in question was not in a legal position to consent to any activity, and that priest in question was in a position of trust. There is no excuse for this type of behaviour--nor is there an excuse for an institution which creates the framework within such behaviour is not only possible, but where the risk of it is enhanced.


^^^^ Thank you visagrunt, well said.

May the universe persuade these un-holy institutions to finally and utterly disappear.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

04 Sep 2012, 1:08 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Personally, I don't care if the teenager in question was the instigator, the seducer or was simply perfectly happy to be having sex. That's not the point.

The point is that the teenager in question was not in a legal position to consent to any activity, and that priest in question was in a position of trust. There is no excuse for this type of behaviour--nor is there an excuse for an institution which creates the framework within such behaviour is not only possible, but where the risk of it is enhanced.


It's the Church of Rome up to its usual tricks.

Really, they'd be better off retaining hookers to service the needs of the clergy. They'd be a lot healthier for it and they wouldn't get nearly as much stick. But that would be sinful, wouldn't it? Far better to rape little choir boys instead.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

04 Sep 2012, 1:17 pm

I have heard that when a Catholic Priest dies for the Faith, he immediately go to Heaven and gets 72 altar boys just for himself. Have you heard such a thing?

ruveyn