A priest or monk, Fathere Benedict Groeschel, gave the most disgusting rationalizations in a talk the other day on EWTN, the Catholic network. His approach was that all the furor was too much ado about not very much, that people should calm down.
He said, among other things, that most priests did not molest children and were not actually pedophiles, but molested already pubescent youngsters. Even though, according to the law, this made them pedophiles, they actually were not.
Also, many priests are falsely accused.
Also ministers and rabbis also have molested children.
Also, our society’s liberal attitude toward sex is to blame.
etc, etc, etc.
He spoke to an audience of Catholic laity, who listened to these rationalizations without overt cricism. I don’t think they were conviced.
I liked what the pope said better: Child molesting is both a SIN and a CRIME!!!
What do you think.
Did anyone else hear Groeschel?
Or other priests rationalizing their scandalous behavior?
I didn’t hear Groeschel, but from your description, I’m not sure he was rationalizing the behavior as much as pointing out that it’s not an exclusively Catholic problem (which it isn’t) that an accusation isn’t proof (which it isn’t) and that for the most part, it’s inaccurate to refer to even the guilty ones as pedophiles ( pedophilia is a psychiatric term definied as the attraction to pre-pubescent children.It is not a legal term at all. It would be more accurate to refer to them as child molesters or sexual abusers). The only part that I could see being taken as a rationalization would be about the liberal attitude being to blame .
Doreen
Doesn’t this alleged activity go back hundreds of years?
Yup. Homosexual activity in monastaries and among other ‘celibate’ groups of men, especially clergy, is well documented going back over a 1000 years.
My gripe is that the Catholic hierarchy fostered a culture where such activity towards children was tolerated and covered up. They can hardly blame the church response on ‘liberal’ society.
Homosexual activity or molesting pubescent boys? There is a bit of a difference;)
This one is particularly relevant:
Boswell, John, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1980)
The single most important work in lesbian and gay Catholic history by a serious scholar. Proposes that homosexuals were accepted before the 13th century, and then intolerance set in. Criticised by gay radicals for letting the Church off the hook. Boswell rejects idea that homosexual subcultures are a recent development.
For the list of reviews (formerly here) see the Guide to John Boswell’s Works
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-bos.html
Shoot. And I thought you had an agenda.
Thank you for posting these. I did not mean to imply that you were making up that statement. I just find that when it comes to the Catholic church, SOME people tend to create facts (on both sides of things), and a statement like “well documented…” set off my internal alarms. Your cites certainly back up your statement.
Oh, I have an agenda. But I try to never let it get in the way of the data.