Fr. Benedict Groeschel - Child Abuse Comments

[To Jesus Through Mary]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1346444526' post='2476860']
I agree that they are in the wrong, but I also think the minor could also in theory be in the wrong. Why else am I morally obligated to confess every mortal sin I have committed if I get a free pass with "Sorry, I'm not quite 100% yet."?
[/quote]

I am not saying the minor could be in the wrong. No matter how wrong the minor may be they are still the minor and never at fault for the abuse. I cannot believe i am actually arguing about this.

Yeah, about the mortal sin thing you need to talk to your confessor about that one. I am not a spiritual adviser. It is my believe once a child hits the age of reason they can commit a mortal sin. I still do not believe a child is as culpable as an adult in regards to sin. Less cognitive reasoning.

[mortify]

[quote name='StClare_OraProNobis' timestamp='1346444521' post='2476859']
[url="http://franciscanfriars.com/for-immediate-release-august-30-2102/"]http://franciscanfri...august-30-2102/[/url]


Personal Statement from Fr Benedict Groeschel:

"I apologize for my comments. I did not intend to blame the victim. A priest (or anyone else) who abuses a minor is always wrong and is always responsible. My mind and my way of expressing myself are not as clear as they used to be. I have spent my life trying to help others the best that I could. I deeply regret any harm I have caused to anyone."
[/quote]

In the world of PR (aka modern day propaganda) it's more prudent to apologize than defend a politically incorrect point.

[Era Might]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1346444782' post='2476863']
Do you have any knowledge of the cases Fr Groeschel was involved in while working at Trinity? I'm wiling to bet you have absolutely zero knowledge and therein lies the difference:[i] Fr Groeschel had first hand experience[/i]. If he is wrong he is wrong, but base it on fact and not conjecture.
[/quote]
No, I have no knowledge about any cases, just about human nature, and I think knowing human nature is enough to merely give an opinion in a general way, which I did. As far as "fact," it's hard to talk about "fact" when we're discussing psychology.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Era Might

[To Jesus Through Mary]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1346444724' post='2476862']
And I'm not attacking your position, I'm simply trying to figure this out. If I'm not 100% morally culpable ever than why do I have to go to confession? The answer seems to be to me that it is because I know full well what I am doing and I know that it is wrong.
[/quote]

Re-read your posts. Our views are pretty much in direct opposition to each other. FP a teenager does not have full but they have some reasoning. Not everything is black and white.

[mortify]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1346444905' post='2476869']
No, I have no knowledge about any cases, just about human nature, and I think knowing human nature is enough to merely give an opinion in a general way, which I did. As far as "fact," it's hard to talk about "fact" when we're discussing psychology.
[/quote]

First hand experience and empiricism trump your conjecture about nature

[Era Might]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1346445078' post='2476873']
First hand experience and empiricism trump your conjecture about nature
[/quote]
First hand experience with what? I didn't make any comments about any specific cases. And no matter how much "first hand experience" you have, you still don't know why people act the way they act...it's all conjecture.

[StClare_OraProNobis]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1346444899' post='2476868']
In the world of PR (aka modern day propaganda) it's more prudent to apologize than defend a politically incorrect point.
[/quote]


I do not think Fr. Benedict is the type of person to apologize when he is not sorry for something. His health and mind are slipping. I know him and this is true. We should be praying for him. He is a wonderful priest but his ability to explain things with nuance is not as it once was. Personally I love him very much. If you follow this link you will also see the statement of his community. They are not prone to saying things that are not true either. They are too authentic for that.

[url="http://franciscanfriars.com/for-immediate-release-august-30-2102/"]http://franciscanfriars.com/for-immediate-release-august-30-2102/[/url]

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='To Jesus Through Mary' timestamp='1346444997' post='2476872']
Re-read your posts. Our views are pretty much in direct opposition to each other. FP a teenager does not have full but they have some reasoning. Not everything is black and white.
[/quote]

They are not in direct opposition to each other. I agree the scandals were terrible and the excuses not worth the breath it took to give them, and I even agree minors definitely do not have as much moral culpability since teenagers do some of the dumbest life decisions I have ever seen in my life (And I say this being one of them), such as in Washington State where it is legal for fifteen year old girls to get their "tubes tied" without parental consent or knowledge. The girls do not do this because they are stupid, they simply don't think things through and they do not look at things the way an adult does.

Edited August 31, 2012 by FuturePriest387

[To Jesus Through Mary]

I added emphasis
[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1346443903' post='2476846']
I agree these acts were bad. Never do I defend the acts or the Priests. I am simply trying to put this in perspective. I realize not all teenagers grasp everything they do 100% (I myself question why I get into debates every time I do), but I would have a good grasp of what I was doing if I came onto somebody. [b]I would understand twelve to maybe even early fifteen, but sixteen and seventeen is a little much[/b]. Abuse has a lot to do with these cases of [b]seduction by the young men [/b]and I do not deny that.
[/quote]

Abuse is never the abusees fault. Ever. They may be guilty of a sin. But they are never deserving of being abused or having there dignity attacked (which is what abuse does) even if they ran around naked in front of the man or woman. Most perps would say "she had it coming to her" "or she wanted it" or whatever. It doesn't make it true.

ETA: Sorry FP- I'm not being very fair to you. They are not in direct opposition. Just not in agreement.

Edited August 31, 2012 by To Jesus Through Mary

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1346444905' post='2476869']
As far as "fact," it's hard to talk about "fact" when we're discussing psychology.
[/quote]

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='To Jesus Through Mary' timestamp='1346446136' post='2476880']
I added emphasis


Abuse is never the abusees fault. Ever. They may be guilty of a sin. But they are never deserving of being abused or having there dignity attacked (which is what abuse does) even if they ran around naked in front of the man or woman. Most perps would say "she had it coming to her" "or she wanted it" or whatever. It doesn't make it true.

ETA: Sorry FP- I'm not being very fair to you. They are not in direct opposition. Just not in agreement.
[/quote]

You are right in that this does not make it true. I'm starting to see what you mean, I'm just still a little unsure about a few things. I'm sorry since this is the only case I can think of, but I lost my virginity at fourteen. I of course confessed this. Do you mean to say I did not have to confess this since I was not thinking clearly? I'm not doubting you, I am just trying to understand everything 100% (Though I think our argument has been that I can't. ).

[Anomaly]

[quote name='To Jesus Through Mary' timestamp='1346423702' post='2476692']
Wow! So sad. I have been noticing in the last 2 years Fr Groeschel really "loosing it". Perhaps Fr Glenn is right, that he isn't thinking straight. I sure hope so. Even [i]if[/i] a 16 yr old boy acted as a "seducer" a adult has no right to act upon that! Sick sick sick. The child is never at fault. Ever.
[/quote]I almost agree 100%. Ultimately the bulk of the responsibility is on the older, more mature, adult who has more responsibility and obligation. Especially a person in authority such as a priest, teacher, coach, boss, etc. Adults with reasonable mental capacity are not seduced by children or teens. Period. The youth may share a minute amount of blame, but it's insignificant compared to an adult capable of being a teacher or priest.

I would think Fr G's remarks were muddled by poor health and old age. Im of the opinion the "journalist and editor" intentionally entrapped an old person in poor health to gin up a controversial story. Very sad. But there is no defending his remarks and Fr G is right in not defending them and apologizing for his misspoken words. Too bad his apology won't be accepted and his remarks dismissed as a mistake of human frailty as they should be.

[cmotherofpirl]

What is abuse defined as?
If a 17 year old has sex with an adult in New York its abuse

If it happened in PA the legal age is 16 and therefore not abuse.However if the age difference is large enough you could be prosecuted as corrupting a minor, maybe. But if you are 15 having sex with a 17 year old its ok, because there is only a 2 year age difference.

But if you live in Ohio and you are 13 you can have sex with a 17 year old and that is not abuse.

Utah is the most interesting ( and sad) one

[b] Utah[/b]
[color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3]
The age of consent in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah"]Utah[/url] is [b]18[/b]. However, it is legal for minors aged 16 and 17 to engage in sexual activity with partner[i]s less than 10 years older.[/i][/size][/font][/color]

[To Jesus Through Mary]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1346447020' post='2476890']
Do you mean to say I did not have to confess this since I was not thinking clearly?.
[/quote]

No- I am not saying that at all. I would strongly encourage you to confess. You are of the age of reason, you are able to sin.

What I am speaking of is abuse. What that guy at Penn State to those boys was abuse. Even if they "seduced" him. It is still gravel disordered and the adult would still be most culpable for the vile relationship. Those boys did not deserve to be abused (and an adult having sexual relations with a child should be called) or have their dignity attack. The boys may have sinned but they are not at fault for the adults actions or the "relationship"

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='To Jesus Through Mary' timestamp='1346446136' post='2476880']
I added emphasis


Abuse is never the abusees fault. Ever. They may be guilty of a sin. But they are never deserving of being abused or having there dignity attacked (which is what abuse does) even if they ran around naked in front of the man or woman. Most perps would say "she had it coming to her" "or she wanted it" or whatever. It doesn't make it true.

ETA: Sorry FP- I'm not being very fair to you. They are not in direct opposition. Just not in agreement.
[/quote]


I think that what is meant is that the issue is not as black and white as the media makes it out to be. They ascribe to Catholic priests a nature that is not realistic; one in which priests just wake up in the morning and say "Let's go abuse some kids!" And they expect of Catholic priests a nature which is not human; one in which they never fall to temptation.

I do not think anyone is saying that people who are abused deserved to be. Just because someone is a temptation, doesn't mean they get the blame when the person they tempted falls or that that other person shouldn't be held culpable for their own actions. [i]But they can still be a temptation.[/i] I think Father's point...if he had a point at all...was that priests are tempted just like everyone else, and they fall to temptation just like everyone else. We cannot expect some inhuman reaction from them. We (as a society) do not expect it from laymen. Yet we expect it from priests, and when they fail, we act [url="http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/for-the-childrens-sake-these-stereotypes-about-priests-must-stop"]like their failure it is some novelty that they alone possess[/url].

I don't think it was a statement about those being abused so much as it was pointing out the fact that priests are human like everybody else and we are rather silly to expect something super-human from them.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Tally Marx