Posted on 01/11/2006 6:03:22 AM PST by NYer
Breaking ranks with his peers, a Roman Catholic bishop called yesterday for state legislatures to temporarily remove the time limits that have prevented many victims of sex abuse from suing the church.
In making that extraordinary appeal, Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit also unburdened himself of a secret. As a teenager 60 years ago, he said, he was "inappropriately touched" by a priest.
Gumbleton, 75, is the first U.S. bishop to disclose that he was a victim of clergy sexual abuse. He is also the first to endorse proposals in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and other states to follow California's example and open a one-year window for victims to file lawsuits over sexual abuse, no matter how long ago it took place.
"I don't want to exaggerate that I was terribly damaged. It was not the kind of sexual abuse that many of the victims experience," Gumbleton said in a telephone interview. But, he said, he knows why sex abuse victims often cannot file lawsuits within the period allowed by the statute of limitations, which in many states is two to five years after the alleged crime.
"They are intimidated, embarrassed, and they just bury it. I understand that," he said. "I never told my parents. . . . I never told anybody."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Only about my money-management skills ... I could make a liability settlement last!
"a number of the cases involving priests seem to have been "consensual" except that the youth involved was not legally capable of consent."
I would argue that, rather than giving willing consent, the boys were overawed by the priest's authority.
"If I was touched inappropriately when I was 16, and need millions to recover, whether the touch-er was 17 or 22 or 30 is not *practically* relevant, although it's legally relevant."
Okay, now this is where I get confused.
Why would inappropriate touching by a 17 year old mess up a 16 year old girl so badly -- unless it was a terrifying, quasi-rape experience with danger of violence?
I was in a lot of fights as a teenager, and it didn't send me to the mental ward.
"The bigger point is that the genuine cases of "abuse," as any reasonable person would understand it, by priests, are easily lost amid cases of "he tried a grope, now give me money," especially when the media wishes to exaggerate "abuse" and conceal "pretty ordinary behavior of homosexuals."
Can't argue with that. I had a music teacher make a pass at me when I was in high school by putting his hand on my thigh. I declined, gaffed it off, and moved on. Never occured to me to sue, nor have I ever lost a moments peace of mind over it.
It was creepy and repulsive, yeah, but not something to eat a gun over.
That's what I meant. I think there are people looking for money over incidents that just aren't any big deal. There probably aren't many people who have not, at some point, had to issue a very strong BUZZ OFF, perhaps with OR I'M CALLING SECURITY added. It's just one of of the annoyances of life.
IMHO, yours is the best take on this turkey.
Yeah--same-o type of incidents with me.
Just roll on forward. My wife will testify that the incidents did not "make me" like little boys...
what's his motive?
"Just roll on forward. My wife will testify that the incidents did not "make me" like little boys..."
Yeah, but we're the lucky ones.
Boys who run afoul of rapists often do develop SSAD. Sometimes decades later.
And not just classic rapists, but...what would you call them? Not "date rapists," because the victim initially has no idea what the perp is up to, just thinking an authority figure is taking a mentorly interest in him...perhaps "authority rapists," if that conveys my meaning.
It's funny -- lots of people agree that molested kids tend to become molesters, and at the same time vehemently deny that homosexually molested kids tend to become homosexual molesters.
Yes our dear auxiliary bishop loves controversy and his name in the paper. I just bet the bishops in Ohio would love to kick his behind all the way back to Detroit. I guess Cardinal Maida let him slip his leash!
He has no real power except to make news in this fashion, he excels at this sort of thing. He is an auxiliary bishop and I'm wondering how the Vatican will proceed.
He's really an auxiliary bishop in name only these days. He "resigned" his adminstrative diocesan responsibilities some 15 years ago, and became the pastor of an inner-city parish. About the only episcopal duties he still performs are ceremonial ones and conferring Confirmation as his turn comes up in "rotation".
There's really no point to the Vatican accepting his resignation, since they'll probably feel obligated to appoint another auxiliary in his place. I'm sure they would much rather utilize their declining number of available bishop-candidates for vacant sees and growing dioceses with greater needs than Detroit. I'm pretty sure this is much the same reason that they have delayed accepting the resignations of Cardinal Maida and Bishop Mengeling in Lansing.
The "rust-belt" dioceses are not exactly a high priority for the Vatican. The historical precedent of the Detroit ordinary being named a Cardinal is likely to end with Maida in favor of the Archbishop of either Houston-Galveston or San Antonio.
I was wondering if we were going to retain a Cardinal. I guess things are on hold until more of the young men attending the seminary are ordained as they seem to be more conservative than their predecessors. A number of the newly ordained are being persecuted by their brother priests who believe the seminary is too conservative.
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.