Yes, It IS That Bad
Irradiated by LabRat
Alternate title, which was just too long: “You know when people ask anti-rape protestors who’s actually in favor of rape? Well…”
So, there was a thing that went down while we were dark, that I wanted to write about at the time but was Overtaken By Events.
The Catholic Register decided to do an interview with Friar Benedict Groeschel, in which the subject of sexual abuse of children came up, and on which he had interesting opinions. Those opinions were so interesting the Register has since taken down the interview and replaced with a bunch of apologies. Given that, I can only quote from other responses to the original. I’m pretty bummed about that, because I wanted to analyze the original more thoroughly; everyone has quoted the same few lines, but really the whole thing was incredibly problematic. Oh well. Anyway, here’s the lengthiest quote I could get, from Sullivan’s response:
People have this picture in their minds of a person planning to — a psychopath. But that’s not the case. 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 … It’s not so hard to see — a kid looking for a father and didn’t have his own — and they won’t be planning to get into heavy-duty sex, but almost romantic, embracing, kissing, perhaps sleeping but not having intercourse or anything like that.
It’s an understandable thing … there are the relatively rare cases where a priest is involved in a homosexual way with a minor. I think the statistic I read recently in a secular psychology review was about 2%. Would that be true of other clergy? Would it be true of doctors, lawyers, coaches?
Here’s this poor guy — [Penn State football coach Jerry] Sandusky — it went on for years. Interesting: Why didn’t anyone say anything? Apparently, a number of kids knew about it and didn’t break the ice. Well, you know, until recent years, people did not register in their minds that it was a crime. It was a moral failure, scandalous; but they didn’t think of it in terms of legal things.
That’s right, y’all. Considering the case of Jerry Sandusky, his primary sympathy seems to be for Sandusky. You remember him, he’s the dude who was anally raping ten year old boys. Poor dude!
Now, the thing that everyone has focused primarily on is the most obvious thing, the thing the Catholic Register apologized for and Groeschel apologized for and the people defending him (yes, he has defenders, and I’ll get to them specifically in a bit here), is for blaming the victims for causing their own rape by “seducing” their attacker. Which, yes, that’s incredibly fucking awful, it should not be necessary to spell out that even if a kid actually threw themselves at you screaming “HAVE SEX WITH ME”*, it’s still the adult’s absolute moral responsibility to refuse. In no small part because inappropriate sexual behavior in children is almost always a huge red flag for past or ongoing sexual abuse; taking this hypothetical child up on it is volunteering to be their next abuser rather than helping them, which, y’know, clergy are theoretically all about. There’s no grey, there’s no “legitimate”, there’s no modifier: having sex with someone unable to truly consent, like a minor under your authority, is just-plain-rape. (Just because I KNOW I’m gonna get someone in comments going on about sexy teenagers and varying ages of consent, Ozy points out in her own article that the average ages of the molestation victims in the Catholic sexual abuse scandal being 11-14, with the youngest being three- not 14-18.)
The thing that really catches my eye about Groeschel’s original statements is how much reduction of responsibility he consistently applies to the rapists. First it’s, “I bet those kids are seducing those poor priests, who are maybe having nervous breakdowns.” (I know psychological stress makes ME much more likely to accept sexual offers from prepubescents.) Then we get weird “things get romantic, but not planning on heavy-duty.” (Thanks, that’s not screamingly inappropriate at all to compare a mentor-mentee relationship to a teenie romance, I feel better now.) Then it’s, “the clergy aren’t so bad, I bet other professions are doing it too!”. (Just the sort of logic you like to see in someone in the business of ultimate moral authority, that.) Then the highly creepy Penn State bit where apparently it was all on the kids to report that poor Jerry was having problems. (Why didn’t anyone say anything? Maybe because of an institutional culture with more sympathy and support for the rapist than their victims. Would you know anything about that, Friar?) Then as the cherry on top, apparently it’s kind of outrageous and extreme that this is an actual CRIME and not just an unfortunate “moral failing”. Man, cheating on your wife is legally okay, but fucking kids isn’t, what a restrictive world we live in today.
Another theme that leaps out is the idea, which is very much echoed in both the Catholic Register and Friars of Renewal apologies and the huffy defensed linked above, is the idea that in order for it to be justifiable to condemn someone for their actions, they had to set out and plan to do something awful and really meant to be awful. Sandusky probably didn’t get up in the morning and go “Nyaharhar, I’m gonna scar me some boys for life today”, so that makes his doing it more okay and more understandable. A priest might not have set out to rape that three year old in their fetching little pair of PullUps, so throwing him in jail over it is just kind of harsh. Friar Groeschel is old and starting to get a bit dotty and has been acting not himself, so he said a bunch of stuff excusing rapists and blaming child rape victims, he probably didn’t really mean to do that.
To put it bluntly: Who fucking cares and why do you think this is relevant to the morality of their action? If you do something awful, it was an awful thing and your moral responsibility for it doesn’t diminish a whit if you didn’t set out to specifically be awful that day. It’s awfulness rests on the scope of its awful effects, not the mindset of the person committing those actions. This also applies to all the “BUT HE’S A GOOD MAN SEE HERE HE’S DONE ALL THOSE GOOD THINGS”. Which, no. If you are a good person and you do something monstrous, there’s no balance scale there, you cease to be a good person and your good deeds have no bearing on the monstrousness of your actions and the monstrosity of you they reflect. If you want to not be a monster you have to stop doing monstrous things and then work your ass off to atone for the effects, not produce your good deeds chitty. Even then sometimes there’s no going back; I’m pretty sure no amount of Salvation Army time served could have made Hitler not-a-monster.
I have to quote the Catholic League defense, it’s a doozy:
In a recent interview, he hypothesized how a young person (14, 16 or 18, as he put it) could conceivably take advantage of a priest who was having a nervous breakdown. He also referred to Jerry Sandusky, the disgraced Penn State football coach, as “this poor guy.” For these remarks, and related comments, he is now being labeled as a defender of child abuse.
The accusation is scurrilous. In the same interview, Groeschel emphatically said that priests who are sexual abusers “have to leave.” His reference to Sandusky was exactly the way a priest-psychologist might be expected to speak: “poor guy” conveys sympathy for his maladies—it is not a defense of his behavior! Indeed, Groeschel asked, “Why didn’t anyone say anything?”
YOU GUYS THEY WERE HYPOTHETICAL CHILDREN WHAT ARE YOU GETTING WORKED UP ABOUT. >:( (The children who were actually sexually abused in the actual Catholic child sex abuse scandal were very damn much not hypothetical.) Also he TOTALLY SAID abusers who were actively abusing “had to leave”, how can you say he’s defending child abuse?! Plus he of course has sympathy for the rapist! Those victims should have totally reported him so he could get help!
Actually, his position on molesting priests beyond this interview where apparently age and injury turned him into a completely different person who suddenly has no idea that rape is all that bad isn’t impossible to determine, because during the time the abuse that turned into such a scandal was happening he was part of the heirarchy that handled misbehaving priests, so he has actions, not just words, on his record. Actions like using his position as a psychologist to help put molesting priests back into a position to abuse. So maybe his stance isn’t so difficult to puzzle out from just “one little interview”. (Actually, searching Groeschel’s name on Bishop Accountability for more than just that article is quite informative**.)
The fact that the person who interviewed Groeschel, and the editorial staff of the Catholic Register, couldn’t figure out there was anything wrong with what he was saying also speaks, in letters that are ten feet high and flashing red, to an institutional culture that perpetuated and is still perpetuating a climate that excuses and protects predators. This is why the abuse scandal seems neverending: because, on an institutional level, they still believe that rape of those under their care and authority isn’t such a big deal and should really be a rather private affair between the rapist, the victim, and maybe the rapist’s therapist.
*File under “hell of a lot less likely than the adult interpreting affection or even just their own attraction as seduction”.
**Here’s a particularly telling one when it comes to his attitude toward the victims.
September 7th, 2012 at 11:46 pm
“But (2*3*5*7*11=)2310 is an odd number! See here, it’s got all these odd factors!”
September 8th, 2012 at 1:26 am
Damn stupid english language.
Rape the legal term is far broader than rape which is synonymous with ravish, which requires force not just convincing.
Had myself all worked up to scream that rape required force, then I looked it up to see that the word rape as used in law is as you say. The common word rape is the forcible kind.
I learned something! And I’m a little embarrassed by my ignorance, but I’ll own up to it.
I am now wondering how many people only see forcible rape as the only kind. I had my own, “this is as wrong but it’s not rape” thing going to discover that rape _IS_ the right word. Quibbling over terms not over rightness.
I am happy to point out that despite calling non-forcible rapes by very specific descriptions I still condemn the perpetrators. As you say, it’s the adult’s (or the competent persons) job to say no to those (and for) who cannot.
September 8th, 2012 at 1:47 am
Full text of the original interview available here, should you feel like eviscerating it further: http://www.theinquiry.ca/wordpress/rc-scandal/other-countries/u-s-a/father-benedict-groeschel-reflects-on-25-years-of-the-franciscan-friars-of-the-renewal/
September 8th, 2012 at 6:05 am
This is the one big problem I have with Christianity: The notion that if you truly and sincerely beg your invisible friend for forgiveness, you should get a free pass for past evil.
Nope. You want to be forgiven, you should earn it. And some acts can’t be worked off.
September 8th, 2012 at 11:28 am
Actually, Kristopher, traditional Christian theology does not support the idea that if one ask forgiveness, one is freed from the consequences of one’s sinful actions. Part of true repentance is that one would be willing to take the full force of any deserved punishment.
I hope Peter will back me up on this… and hope he’ll add is bit as he’s a better writer than I.
Of course, it is hard to not jump into the ‘no true scotsman’ fallicy as there are people that think exactly that- folks facing prison sentances getting that ole jail house religion comes to mind.
September 8th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Actually Joe that’s pretty much one of the fundamental tennets. Scapegoating of sin onto Jesus. Vicarious redemption. And one I can’t help feel has been deliberately crafted for money and power(since it says restitution should be made to god, ie the church, instead of the victim).
It’s how the roman catholic church got so filthy stinking rich in the first place.
September 8th, 2012 at 3:58 pm
Good article, Labrat, and by and large I agree with your perspective - with the following exceptions:
1. Please be very careful about blaming Fr. Groeschel and/or other therapists for “using his position as a psychologist to help put molesting priests back into a position to abuse”, as you put it. Those making such claims are, in my experience, those in authority, whose decision it was to put offending priests back into ministry. They appear to have been trying to find scapegoats to blame instead of accepting responsibility themselves. We have no firsthand knowledge of what therapies were involved, what ‘cures’ were supposedly ‘achieved’, or what steps were recommended by the therapist(s) involved for future measures.
2. I’ve addressed Fr. Groeschel’s state of mind on my blog:
http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-controversy-over-fr-benedict.html
I don’t believe he’s fully responsible for his statements right now, due partly to his advanced age and partly to the effects of a very serious car accident a few years ago. I believe that this interview should never have been published without some very serious vetting and editing for that reason. It’s too late to undo the damage now, of course, but I regret it very much all the same.
In closing, let me once again say that I’m in full agreement with you on the culpability of pedophiles, and the failings of the establishment in dealing with the problem. You know my views. I can only express my heartfelt and most profound sorrow that this problem is still with us.
September 8th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
Peter- bear in mind he’s in no way trained as a psychologist to treat sexual predators. Arguably no matter who is blaming who and who deserves the lion’s share of the blame for turning Hanley in particular loose on the public again, he had no business making that call in the first place.
There’s also the matter that his voice at large outside the church during the years of the scandal has mainly been one of blaming the media for attacking the church, minimizing the scale of the problem, and generally blaming the whole thing on the church not being loudly morally conservative enough- or at least that’s what’s readily searchable to an outsider.
I see a lot of conflation of sexual sin in general in his words that I can find with actively predatory behavior toward those whom clergy have authority over. Arguably that is a very understandable viewpoint from his seat. Which does not make it not an extremely damaging one.
September 8th, 2012 at 4:53 pm
Come to think of it I haven’t seen any statement of his yet that indicates he thinks the clergy committing the abuses are predators at all, rather than just fallen men sinning. That’s well and good from a theological standpoint, but very fucking alarming coming from anyone in a position of responsibility to see that the vulnerable are protected or that victims are helped.
September 8th, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Joe: So you aren’t OK with folks like Huckabee pardoning jailhouse convertees?
And yes, I realize their are different flavors of Christian … but they all demand that you forgive someone who repents.
September 8th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
As a side note I’ll be away from home until tomorrow afternoon and not likely to be making keeping on on the innerweb a priority. Play nice while I’m gone and I will return to the discussion then.
September 8th, 2012 at 9:52 pm
I’ll try to answer without either preaching or going fake scotsman. But the idea presented is that to Christians, once someone is forgiven, the church gives them instant restoration without delay.
Which is kind of tough, because as you know, every single Christian beleives exactly the same thing… [/sarc]
However, I can speak from my experience as a Baptist Deacon and staff of various church ministries, including a childrens shelter.
First, there is a difference between forgiveness and restoration. If one screws up badly, God can forgive them in an instant, but restoration may take a lifetime.
For instance, a person just out of jail on child abuse charges would not be allowed to work in our children’s ministries (or anyone else that has not passed a background check). Even if they have had a jailhouse conversion. A convicted embezzler wouldn’t be hired out of jail to work in the finanical office, either (kind of an obvious one, isn’t it?).
We do have a few ministers with some pretty wild* backgrounds. However, they also have put in years and years of hard ministry work before they were accepted as ministers.
Even in things that are not against the law, but of a moral (to us) nature such as an affair, asking forgiveness would not lead to instant restoration. A person in a leadership role would have to step down, and it may be a long time (if ever) before they would be allowed into a ministry role again.
Anyway, just my limited take on the issue.
*not child abuse
September 8th, 2012 at 10:40 pm
Kristopher: If you look at the foundational mythology of Christianity - the expulsion of the garden of Eden - God loved Adam & Eve. He forgave them, and gave them clothes to cover their shame, and gave them and their descendants ways to atone. But, He still drove them out, because they had broken His law. So no, Christians are not obligated to remove punishment or consequences from those who repent and confess of their sins.
Forgiveness has to do with letting go of the blame, the bitterness, the hatred, and the anger. It does not mean trusting the person, or removing the consequences of their actions. As such, it’s theological - it’s about healing the heart of of the victim, not about removing wrongdoing from having been done. As for the doer of the deed, even when we talk about God doing the forgiving, there is still the command from God that many a sinner would like to forget is attached: “Go and sin no more.” In other words, it’s not happening if you think that you are free to go do it again.
Leaving theological waters aside for a moment: this is also a fundamental issue in dealing with addicts. “If you’ve forgiven me being addicted, for stealing from you to support my habit, and for beating the tar out of you when you found me out, then why can’t I move back in and we pretend it never happened?” Forgiving the act allows friends and relatives to let go of the bitterness and hatred in their hearts. It does NOT mean they have to enable an addict, or put them in a position where the addict is set up to easily fail again.
(Not that you won’t find abusers who claim that “Oh, God has forgiven me, so you have to let me come back home and love me, and support me” - any more than you wouldn’t find perps standing before the judge trying to look clean-cut and sober and pleading that they’re really sorry, they’ll never try to be Sumdood again, so the judge shouldn’t send them to jail. Trying to escape consequences is a very human desire.)
Moving back to theological waters: Please note here, sins are not the same thing as crimes. There are overlaps, but sin is a theological state of going against God, and crime is a judicial state of going against the government. Adultery is a sin, but not a crime. Jaywalking is a crime, but not a sin.
This is one of my fundamental problems with the Catholic church: they did not prosecute their priests, and make them subject to the laws of man as well as the laws of God. This is where I disagree with my own beloved husband: he sees the decades of good works and striving for holiness this half-senile old man just interviewed has done, and understands his ramblings, but believes it was profoundly stupid to have printed them. He also believes this man was trying to make the best of a very bad situation where he was directly ordered by his church superior to rehabilitate bad priests. That the priests this man tried to rehabilitate were put back in positions of authority over young children, he lays at the feet of the bishops who made the decision to protect, hide, and then transfer them there (instead of this old guy.)
I say, to hell with patient-doctor privilege and the commands of his bishop, when this guy found he had an active pedophile on his hands, the first place he should have gone was the police. These pedophiles belong in jail. (Well, really, they should be ashes scattered in running water, but jail is a damn good start.) I don’t disagree with him trying to change their hearts and their ways, as well as save their souls, but I disagree profoundly with his silence before the courts that allowed his bishops to put these abusers back in charge of children - and his silence after that was done. If he wanted to save their souls and help them repent, he could damn well do it from the other side of a jail cell, and fuck the damage to the Mother Church.
My beloved husband actually agrees with me up until the “fuck the damage to the Mother Church” part, where he winces enough he almost spills his tea, and tries to point out that he is not apologizing for Groeschel, he is trying to explain the situation and context that led this man to feel he was making the best choice, even if it was distasteful. And that we really don’t know what went on, because the only claims are from weasels trying to shift out from the consequences of putting pedophiles back in charge of children. He’s known of the guy, and all his works across many fields, for decades.
I don’t know him from Adam, and am far less forgiving. When faced with a choice of turning against direct orders from the institution and authority that he loves deeply, has belonged to and been a vital part of, clothes, feeds, shelters, and gives him authority, and represents the unbroken line of authority from God and…. God, I am cruelly and completely unforgiving that Groeschel chose the church over God. After all, my husband walked away rather than condone - so, too, Groeschel should have turned those priests over to the cops and walked away.
That cruelty and lack of forgiveness is perhaps a great example of why Christianity is a really, really fucking hard religion for me to follow.
September 9th, 2012 at 4:02 pm
( shakes head ).
I think the Jews had a better notion. If you want to get into heaven, you need to work hard at it.
September 9th, 2012 at 7:27 pm
Ponder this- how should a parent treat a child that ask for forgiveness for something they did?
Hatefully scream at them? Disown them? “Johnny, you rotten filth! How can you get an ‘F’? Get out of my sight, I hate you!”
Instantly pretend nothing at all happened? “Awww, Johnny, you got drunk and totaled your car… do want to borrow mine?”
Is it not inconceiveable for a parent to forgive a child, yet still hold them strictly accountable for one’s actions?
September 10th, 2012 at 4:37 am
Nice strawmaning there Joe.
September 10th, 2012 at 7:53 am
Groeschel’s comment on how it’s really the kids seducing the priests and how he doesn’t seem to view molesting priests as predators made me look up an older post by Last psychiatrist:
“Opportunistic (regressed) pedophiles would rather have a hot 25 year old, but will take the best offer. Regressed pedophiles don’t think they are pedophiles.[...]The regressed, or opportunistic, pedophile does the opposite: “I know she’s only 13, but have you seen her ass?!”
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2007/03/a_primer_on_pedophilia.html
September 10th, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Joe: If God is our parent, then he needs to go to jail for extreme child abuse.
He lets his psychotic children kill and eat his well behaved children.
I suggest not relying a lot on analogy. Two can play the analogy game.
September 10th, 2012 at 4:06 pm
W&W: If you look at the foundational mythology of Christianity – the expulsion of the garden of Eden – God loved Adam & Eve.
That’s the Old Testament. The foundational mythology of Christianity is summed up neatly in the Apostles’ Creed. I’ve no real quibbles with the rest of your response, but the difference between Genesis and the Gospels is a pretty significant one, and I felt compelled to note it.
September 10th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
The new testament is in many ways as bad or worse than the old. Hell is a new testament concept, eternal torment, this is by definition infinitely more evil than the finite deaths in the old testament. And I must point out that the even new testament had a “kill the infidels” passage, just like the Qu’ran (It’s Luke 19:27). Mind you that’s somewhat more mild than the old testament version (Deutoronomy 13:13-19).
September 10th, 2012 at 11:49 pm
I may have drifted into straw territory in my desire to stay away from the old “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
Basically, I did not want to flat out say in response to Kristopher’s point that Christians do not believe that asking forgiveness should grant an instant reprieve from any consequence of one’s actions. And, because I am not the Pope of all Christians and cannot thus speak for all Christians, I tried to limit that statement to my own personal experience and circle.
I also tried to explain my point- that the concept of forgiving a person but still expecting them to take the consequences of one’s actions is not out of line with everyday experiences. And that leads back to point one- we don’t all believe that a person who ask forgiveness should be instantly granted a pardon from consequences.
It was just a little point of fact I wanted to bring up. That is all.
September 11th, 2012 at 6:15 am
Rape is a crime I can’t get my head around, really. Same with child molestation and pedophilia. I understand that it -happens-. I just can’t grasp the thought processes that drive that kind of behavior.
September 11th, 2012 at 3:04 pm
You are just a little ray of sunshine, Kaerius.
September 11th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Something positive: It isn’t real.
September 11th, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Matt: Sorry your comment got caught in the spam filter. I have not a clue why.
September 11th, 2012 at 6:09 pm
no worries, LabRat
September 13th, 2012 at 8:07 pm
My understanding was always that true absolution (i.e., by God) was dependent on true repentance. However, true repentance requires fully accepting the evil and harm of what you’ve done, so in the case of something as bad as pedophilia it would pretty much mean a kind of mental self-torture for the rest of your life, knowing what you’d done…
Regarding the priest, I truly hope he was senile.