Jump to content

Priest Says Kids Were Asking For It?


raoul
 Share

Recommended Posts

I caught this from the NY Times today. It's one of those things which makes you rub your eyes because you're not sure you've read it correctly. Among the comments made by this sad excuse for a human being:

 

“Suppose you have a man having a nervous breakdown, and a youngster comes after him,” Father Groeschel, now 79, said in the interview. “A lot of the cases, the youngster — 14, 16, 18 — is the seducer.”

He added that he was “inclined to think” that priests who were first-time abusers should not be jailed because “their intention was not committing a crime.” source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/nyregion/in-interview-the-rev-benedict-groeschel-says-abuse-victims-can-be-seducers.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120831

 

 

You can read the rest by just clicking on the link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess if I ever meet that POS in real life, that's what I'll tell the cops too. "Sir, he was asking for it - me decapitating him with my battleaxe was just what he wanted!". Zing - acquitted! :fdevil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, well he did try to take back the statement it seems; blaming it on senility.

 

Having been in that situation (not w/ a clergy) I can say now that I almost understand what he was getting at.

As a young minor, I didn't have the rationale to realize the seriousness of the situation at the time. Like some of these cases reported in the media, I wasn't aggressively pursued against my will either; I had the option to say no or run away, and I did sometimes. But I was curious too.

Years later, at a funeral, a switch flipped and all the memories came flooding back. I freaked out because I was old enough to understand it then. The hardest thing to accept was that I went with him not because I "wanted it", but b/c I trusted him; I thought it was okay. I became angry with myself for going with him, until I realized that he was the one responsible. I might have poked at him, but he's the one that crossed the line, not me. He was the one who was f***ed up, not me.

 

So Mr. Groeschel, after this long rant, you have a point, but you're a very wrong & misguided old man. First time offenders are just as responsible for their actions as habitual offenders, and are obligated to abide by the laws or face the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"But she was just asking for it! Wearing that short skirt, high heels and low cut top in public, you could tell she was wanting some action."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, well he did try to take back the statement it seems; blaming it on senility.

 

Having been in that situation (not w/ a clergy) I can say now that I almost understand what he was getting at.

As a young minor, I didn't have the rationale to realize the seriousness of the situation at the time. Like some of these cases reported in the media, I wasn't aggressively pursued against my will either; I had the option to say no or run away, and I did sometimes. But I was curious too.

Years later, at a funeral, a switch flipped and all the memories came flooding back. I freaked out because I was old enough to understand it then. The hardest thing to accept was that I went with him not because I "wanted it", but b/c I trusted him; I thought it was okay. I became angry with myself for going with him, until I realized that he was the one responsible. I might have poked at him, but he's the one that crossed the line, not me. He was the one who was f***ed up, not me.

 

So Mr. Groeschel, after this long rant, you have a point, but you're a very wrong & misguided old man. First time offenders are just as responsible for their actions as habitual offenders, and are obligated to abide by the laws or face the consequences.

Two quick points of rebuttal:

1. So he took back what he said? Yeah, after a shit storm came to town and he was forced to recant just like every other religious asshole who has opened their mouth up, appalled rational people, and have had to backpeddle. Remember when Pat Robertson said a god told him to run for pres.? He got his ass kicked, came back and claimed it wasn't exactly what he had said. Camping predicted the end of the world only to come back and tapdance around his prediction. Good ole Frankie Graham continously sticks his foot in his dumb ass mouth only to have to re-explain something. So the point is meaningless that you made, at least to me.

2. You actually say you could understand? Ever been a victim of abuse, any kind? I'm almost 68 and still have bouts of PTSD from abuse that took place as a kid. And your other comment about a first time offense perhaps not being as bad as repeat ones. Thanks for the validation of my first time attempt to hold up a bank. I'll use your comment to plead out of it. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Babylonian Dream

The problem with people underage isn't whether or not they want it, its whether or not they're developed enough to understand it and the consequences of it. This is exactly why it is an should be illegal to get with people who are underage. That's not even the issue. Even if it was, they can always claim this and try to get them to agree, and that can be a scary situation for a teenager or anyone for that matter. It doesn't matter, he's guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yikes. People see what they want to see. If he sees children as seducing him, my response would be he's had that fantasy a time or two. I don't care if a child/teenager is standing there naked; they need an adult in that moment to teach them, not take advantage of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, well he did try to take back the statement it seems; blaming it on senility.

 

Having been in that situation (not w/ a clergy) I can say now that I almost understand what he was getting at.

As a young minor, I didn't have the rationale to realize the seriousness of the situation at the time. Like some of these cases reported in the media, I wasn't aggressively pursued against my will either; I had the option to say no or run away, and I did sometimes. But I was curious too.

Years later, at a funeral, a switch flipped and all the memories came flooding back. I freaked out because I was old enough to understand it then. The hardest thing to accept was that I went with him not because I "wanted it", but b/c I trusted him; I thought it was okay. I became angry with myself for going with him, until I realized that he was the one responsible. I might have poked at him, but he's the one that crossed the line, not me. He was the one who was f***ed up, not me.

 

So Mr. Groeschel, after this long rant, you have a point, but you're a very wrong & misguided old man. First time offenders are just as responsible for their actions as habitual offenders, and are obligated to abide by the laws or face the consequences.

Two quick points of rebuttal:

1. So he took back what he said? Yeah, after a shit storm came to town and he was forced to recant just like every other religious asshole who has opened their mouth up, appalled rational people, and have had to backpeddle. Remember when Pat Robertson said a god told him to run for pres.? He got his ass kicked, came back and claimed it wasn't exactly what he had said. Camping predicted the end of the world only to come back and tapdance around his prediction. Good ole Frankie Graham continously sticks his foot in his dumb ass mouth only to have to re-explain something. So the point is meaningless that you made, at least to me.

2. You actually say you could understand? Ever been a victim of abuse, any kind? I'm almost 68 and still have bouts of PTSD from abuse that took place as a kid. And your other comment about a first time offense perhaps not being as bad as repeat ones. Thanks for the validation of my first time attempt to hold up a bank. I'll use your comment to plead out of it. LOL

is this a response to my post you quoted, or to the article?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is this a response to my post you quoted, or to the article?

It was a direct response to 2 of your points.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

is this a response to my post you quoted, or to the article?

It was a direct response to 2 of your points.

I don't think you understood those points exactly...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand your points? Okay, here they are with my direct responses. BTW - I didn't cut and paste your entire post, only the main points of each section

 

 

 

Okay, well he did try to take back the statement it seems; blaming it on senility.(from you)

 

(from me). So he took back what he said? Yeah, after a shit storm came to town and he was forced to recant just like every other religious asshole who has opened their mouth up, appalled rational people, and have had to backpeddle. Remember when Pat Robertson said a god told him to run for pres.? He got his ass kicked, came back and claimed it wasn't exactly what he had said. Camping predicted the end of the world only to come back and tapdance around his prediction. Good ole Frankie Graham continously sticks his foot in his dumb ass mouth only to have to re-explain something. So the point is meaningless that you made, at least to me.

 

 

Having been in that situation (not w/ a clergy) I can say now that I almost understand what he was getting at.(from you)

 

(from me). You actually say you could understand? Ever been a victim of abuse, any kind? I'm almost 68 and still have bouts of PTSD from abuse that took place as a kid. And your other comment about a first time offense perhaps not being as bad as repeat ones. Thanks for the validation of my first time attempt to hold up a bank. I'll use your comment to plead out of it. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand your points? Okay, here they are with my direct responses. BTW - I didn't cut and paste your entire post, only the main points of each section

 

 

 

Okay, well he did try to take back the statement it seems; blaming it on senility.(from you)

 

(from me). So he took back what he said? Yeah, after a shit storm came to town and he was forced to recant just like every other religious asshole who has opened their mouth up, appalled rational people, and have had to backpeddle. Remember when Pat Robertson said a god told him to run for pres.? He got his ass kicked, came back and claimed it wasn't exactly what he had said. Camping predicted the end of the world only to come back and tapdance around his prediction. Good ole Frankie Graham continously sticks his foot in his dumb ass mouth only to have to re-explain something. So the point is meaningless that you made, at least to me.

 

 

Having been in that situation (not w/ a clergy) I can say now that I almost understand what he was getting at.(from you)

 

(from me). You actually say you could understand? Ever been a victim of abuse, any kind? I'm almost 68 and still have bouts of PTSD from abuse that took place as a kid. And your other comment about a first time offense perhaps not being as bad as repeat ones. Thanks for the validation of my first time attempt to hold up a bank. I'll use your comment to plead out of it. LOL

Okay, you can disagree on point #1.

I have been the victim of abuse. Did you read my first post all the way through??? I went through PTSD. I went to therapy. I found my own closure, so now I can look at it differently and not swell up with anger or wake up panicking in the night. I forgave him, not because he deserved it, but because I needed to move on. I didn't say first time offenders weren't as bad as repeat offenders, read that again. I said it doesn't matter how many times they've done it, they're always responsible for whatever they've done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard his cognitive ability has been decreasing lately, which makes me wonder why he's still a priest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"But she was just asking for it! Wearing that short skirt, high heels and low cut top in public, you could tell she was wanting some action."

 

Yes, being pinned in a filthy alley next to a reeking garbage can is a real turn-on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard his cognitive ability has been decreasing lately, which makes me wonder why he's still a priest.

 

Isn't that part of the job description?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That priest is asking for it . . . asking to serve out his sentance in the general population rather than the sex offender wing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I was curious too.

 

That is human nature. Curiosity is not consent. That is why statutory rape is a crime. I hope you find healing. It sounds like you are off to a good start by realizing there is nothing wrong with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things stand out here.

 

First off, the victim-blaming. Heard it all before, you know, "he wouldn't hit you if you'd calm down," "stop being so hysterical," blah blah blah. Sickening. And the fact that this... this douchenozzle is sitting there saying, "well, sometimes the kids make passes at adults"? Makes. Me. Sick.

 

Secondly... umm..,. when a child presents overly sexual behavior, that usually means the child has already been sexually abused. A child or pre-teen isn't going to "naturally" gravitate towards that sort of behavior without being taught (coerced) to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard his cognitive ability has been decreasing lately, which makes me wonder why he's still a priest.

 

The faster his mind erodes, the more qualified he is for the priesthood. The Vatican prefers it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.