“Excusing child molestation cannot be absolved with an “I’m sorry”.”
I’m just sick to death of that kind of crap. There are so many false-flag posters on FR now that it’s hardly better than DU.
His remarks in no way sought to excuse child molestation—not by any stretch of the imagination.
I’ll go further: no one of normal intelligence could honestly think they did.
I have six children. I would not hesitate to protect them or anyone else’s children from a molester using...ahem...the minimum amount of force necessary.
This does not mean that I am willing to ignore or deny *any* part of the truth. If the truth is that a priest was too weak, too messed up, too whatever to resist a persistent teenager, then that is the truth.
That particular truth does not excuse child molestation. However, the ages he mentioned—14, 16, 18—are post-pubescent, and so would be cases of statutory rape, not child molestation.
Age 18 wouldn't be any kind of rape and 16 might not be in some states. But him throwing the ages in there the way he did, it sounds like a way to "soft sell" his argument which was really meant to apply to younger ages. Sounds like he felt he was losing the argument at that point and tried to backpedal it to older ages.
One of the most truthful statements I have heard lately,dear friend!