Priest apologizes for saying children are seducers in sex abuse cases

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/31/13583763-ny-priest-apologizes-for-saying-child-is-often-seducer-in-sex-abuse-cases?lite


No he ain't, he's just sorry the world doesn't agree with him. I say burn them all at the stake, and get Bridgeford Charcoal to sponsor.

Fuck him.

If he hadn't said it in the first place he wouldn't have to apologize for it. If he thinks children want to be used in that manner he needs to get the hell out of the priesthood. Wonder how many kids he has abused.

Suzi wrote:If he hadn't said it in the first place he wouldn't have to apologize for it. If he thinks children want to be used in that manner he needs to get the hell out of the priesthood. Wonder how many kids he has abused.

I think that would have to clear out about 75% of the whole priesthood.

OK, I have copied the offending remark of the old padre:

Groeschel had said, "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."

Now before the witch hunt and burning at the stake get under way, let me say I can see where he is coming from. Notice he did not say CHILDREN. He said YOUNGSTER, and even put it pubescent adolescence of 14,16,18 years of age. (all ages of sexual consent in many parts of the world). So, unlike the law that calls a 17-year-old a "child" and a person who is turned on by them a "pedophile," let's be realistic and properly call them an "ephebophile," a person turned on by adolescents.

This is from my very candid "Sexual History:"

"From working at the group home I moved to a Catholic Boys Home in Marrero, where I also lived on the premises. I was not very sexually active at this time, but at least open to sexual possibilities. There was an opportunity to get physical with an adolescent boy who was alone with me in my room one night. He was being seductively inviting and it took great restraint on my part to send him back to his dorm, because the prospect of making love to this youth was very arousing. My restraint was not one of propriety, for I feel it perfectly natural for a middle aged man or woman to be sexual with an adolescent youth. My restraint was one of caution, concerned that this boy would use our sexual relationship, which is forbidden by the laws of our puritanical culture, as leverage to extort favors from me. Such was the case with a celibate brother at this very home, when one of his love interests got angry when he didn't get his way and reported him."

This entry was rather cursory. "Brian" one of my groudskeeping crew, came to my room in an old abandoned building where I was living a Monk's life. I only had a mattress on the floor and watching my portable black & white TV. Brian sat on the mattress beside me, but eventually got relaxed and unbuttoned his shirt, laid back and put his arms behind his head, revealing his taut abs and hairless smooth chest for my view. It was very seductive and that is when I told him to go back to the dorm.

Now the Catholic Brother mentioned was very popular with the teen boys. This was in the late '70s across the river from New Orleans and at the time no one knew of the pervasive abuse the priesthood was doing, nor did we suspect "Bro Hebert" who was in an administrative position. But he was doing some of the boys and when he did not fulfill one of their demands the kid ratted him out. BTW, no criminal charges were brot against the Bro, he was shipped off to somewhere in Texas.

18 is not a child, 14-15-16 is.

When my son was 14 the legal age in Canada was 14. If any one had abused him I would have killed him. My son at 14 was still a little boy, he didn't hit 5 foot until he was 15, then he grew like 12-13 inches in one year. But at 14 he was still playing with his cars in the back yard when he wasn't rigging his sisters rooms so he could listen to their chatter. Today he is 6 ft 4 inches but he was very slow growing till he hit 15.

Shale wrote:

While that may be one interpretation, legally it is the age of sexual consent for much of the world, including Canada which is 16.

All the dark blue on this map is 16 years old. The next lighter blue is 15 and the next is 14.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent_-_Global.svg

The law also used to have no problem with men in their 30s marrying 14 years and having 10 kids with them, most of them before the girls were 18. Would any parent be so stupid to okay something like that today, in a modern civilization? Sure they say that's why Charlie Chaplin was run out of the U.S. back then because his brides were all so young but since his behavior there wasn't much different than a lot of other people's at the same time you know it was really the politics. But today, if anybody would even suggest such a thing, that girl's parents would be loading up the shotgun and they ain't taking it down the aisle.