Friday, August 31, 2012

Priests are innocent, victims are seducers

Says Father Benedict Groeschel, charmingly.

“People have this picture in their minds of a person planning to — a psychopath. But that’s not the case,” Groeschel explained. “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.”


Right. How does he know that, I wonder?  And even if it’s the case in some circumstances, does that mean that no abuse has occurred?  That the child has not been harmed?  That no crime has been committed? Does it mean that the man is no longer responsible for his actions?  That – put plainly – it’s OK to rape people if they’re asking for it?

Groeschel called the abuse “an understandable thing,” and pointed to Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky, who he called a “poor guy.”

Yeah, poor guy.  He was allowed to get away with systematic sexual abuse of children over a prolonged period.  Poor guy.  According to Groeschel, who presumably doesn’t know any more than the rest of us so is making this shit up, it didn’t occur to anyone that Sandusky might be committing crimes by sexually assaulting children and that’s why he was allowed to get away with it.  Sure, nobody thought that raping and otherwise sexually assaulting children might be a crime.  Or might be, you know, wrong and needed to be stopped.

Groeschel pointed out that “sexual difficulties” were rarely prosecuted 10 or 15 years ago, and now if “any responsible person in society would become involved in a single sexual act — not necessarily intercourse — they’re done.”

So one rape is fine? It was better in the old days when people who raped children remained in positions where they could do it again? 

Rape me once, shame on me?

“And I’m inclined to think, on their first offense, they should not go to jail because their intention was not committing a crime,” he added.

Their intention was not to commit a crime.  It was to fucking rape or otherwise sexually assault children.  Groeschel’s obsession with whether a particular act is illegal rather than whether it is wrong and harmful is simply obscene.  He’s a monster.

No comments:

Post a Comment