Posted on 09/08/2012 5:07:45 AM PDT by Renfield
New York - A prominent Catholic priest says he believes “youngsters” are often to blame for sexual abuse by priests and that priests who are first time offenders should not be jailed for their crime.
Father Benedict Groeschel, founder of Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, is well known as the host of Sunday Night Prime with Father Benedict Groeschel, a weekly show on Catholic television network EWTN. It was not what he said on his television show that has sparked controversy however, it is comments he made in an interview with the National Catholic Register that has outraged many. According to a UPI report, Groeschel told the newspaper
"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."....
(Excerpt) Read more at digitaljournal.com ...
Did he molest someone in the past, and are his musings simply a manifestation of someone trying to justify past abhorrent actions. I think it’s worth checking on this, don’t you?So how do you propose "checking on this"? A criminal investigation? Or some odd vigilante group probe? What, exactly are you suggesting be done here? And why?
Awwwdoggies! Do NOT get me started!
OK: Check this out: A man I know accused a sister of being “provacative” when he was 15 and she was five. He blamed his proclivity for juvenile females on his sister, and by the time his youngest daughter was two, (the youngest of ten children, five of whom were girls) she was actively trying to distance herself from his demand to change her diaper.
Eventually, she blew the whistle (made the front page news in the small town) and he spent 12 years in prison without parole. His daughter is still undergoing therapy, but she has a loving husband and a supportive, extensive (aware) family members who are with her every step of the way.
Him? He has recently turned 78 years old, and says he is “too old for that now.” His life is a total, absolute lie from beginning to end. And I’m sorry I know him, but I am happy I was confided in by his daughter and sister.
Predators are predators. And they will blame everyone they can for their proclivity to molest the innocent. Where is John Walsh when you need him?
What proof do you have?
Just because he mispoke. Should we investigate you everytime you misspeak?
You’re still whining? I answered this down thread.
I get it. You don’t care to check. I think its not a bad idea. It doesn’t matter at this point anyway.
You and James both seem just a little to familiar with the behavior and psychology of pedophiles. I think it is time to investigate you two simple based on the things you have both said on this thread.
You and James both seem just a little to familiar with the behavior and psychology of pedophiles. I think it is time to investigate you two simple based on the things you have both said on this thread.That seems fair.
LOL, go ahead, feel free to do so. Who’s stopping you?
“You and James both seem just a little to familiar with the behavior and psychology of pedophiles.”
You may wish to ignore and make light of this. Those that have lived through the horrors of sexual predators and have seen first-hand what they do, have studied and learned their psychology, and have acted to make sure they are held responsible know that you simply do not understand.
It is an objective fact that this statement is consistent with sexual predator psychology. He said “sorry” as he should have. He may well be a crazy old man with nothing behind it, but that he was discussing a context that was clear - and made a cogent, and concise argument, however wrong and misguided, for excusing sexual predation amongst his colleagues should give pause.
You find it funny that someone would point out that there should be a concern, and then, finally, you claim it’s bigotry, then you say those that have any concern are themselves pedophiles.
You are the one that would excuse pedophilia, and would discount any concern over expressed statements for leniency of sexual predators, and attempt to divert attention with specious charges of bigotry and pedophilia.
So sorry to bore you, but, I find your protestations a bit much. Perhaps too much.
Their dogged defense of their chosen establishment is akin to fanboyism:
http://techreport.com/blog/21294/the-science-of-fanboyism
It’s a lost cause to use evidence and reason with these type of people. Due to the lack of a working internal mechanism to clean out the rot (in turn due to internal opposition against recognising the pre-existent problem), you will continue to see more tongue-slips and even more exposés making it to the public eye until the whole establishment crumbles to dust.
“Sounds like he felt he was losing the argument at that point and tried to backpedal it to older ages.”
I guess it could sound like that if you were laboring under the misconception that there were a lot of pedophile priests.
In fact, in the vast majority of cases the victims were teenagers, not children.
It’s a lost cause to use evidence and reason with these type of people.No evidence was presented, no reason was used. Bigotry on display for all to see though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.