Lord, forgive Father Groeschel

Father Benedict Groeschel provided a rare glimpse into the mindset that allowed the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church to go on for so many decades. He is a very high profile Franciscan Friar that has even counseled priests involved in the scandal. In an interview with the National Catholic Register, Father Groeschel discussed the scandal with considerable sympathy for the perpetrators while blaming the victims. (Note: After the interview attracted criticism and unwelcome attention, it was removed. Here is a link to the cached interview.)

When asked if he had been working with priests involved in the scandal, he suggested that the priests were vulnerable because of emotional problems and the victims seduced them.

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 is a difficult attitude to fathom. Never mind the fact that many of the cases were children under the age of 12. Whether the Father is more sympathetic to priests because he comes from their ranks or some misguided, immature idea about sexual behavior is hard to determine. Groeschel describes the sexual contact as something unplanned and almost accidental.

Well, 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.

So it was just affection gone awry and the poor priests succumbed to the wiles of young boys and girls.

Groeschel is even sympathetic to Jerry Sandusky.

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.

If you go back 10 or 15 years ago with different sexual difficulties — except for rape or violence — it was very rarely brought as a civil crime. Nobody thought of it that way. Sometimes statutory rape would be — but only if the girl pushed her case. Parents wouldn’t touch it. People backed off, for years, on sexual cases. I’m not sure why.

That suggests that he views this as "moral" and cultural failures, but not pathological and criminal. In effect, he is saying that kids could not have been that seriously harmed because they did not come forward. He cannot imagine that the kids complained, but no one believed them. Remember that Sandusky targeted vulnerable and at-risk kids that came to his charitable camps. He also cannot imagine the shame and confusion that these kids experienced as they were betrayed by someone they looked up to and trusted. And in his mind, parents only worry about sexual activities of their children in the case of rape.

What Groeschel does not seem to grasp is that priests serve Christ and betrayed the Lord by abusing their authority and taking advantage of children. There is no revulsion and demand for accountability for the priests. He even suggests that the first offense should not be treated as a major felony.

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

Whether these views of sexual abuse by priests are shared by other leaders of the Catholic Church is uncertain. However, the bishops moved abusive priests around rather than defrock them. If their only concern was to protect the Church from scandal, that would have been the most obvious and defensible action to take.

Also look at the action of the National Catholic Register in relation to the Groeschel interview. It was published without comment or question, but then quickly removed when it provoked a firestorm of criticism. It was replaced with the following editorial comment:

Editor’s Note:
Child sexual abuse is never excusable. The editors of the National Catholic Register apologize for publishing without clarification or challenge Father Benedict Groeschel's comments that seem to suggest that the child is somehow responsible for abuse. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our publication of that comment was an editorial mistake, for which we sincerely apologize. Given Father Benedict's stellar history over many years, we released his interview without our usual screening and oversight. We have removed the story. We have sought clarification from Father Benedict. 

Jeanette R. De Melo Editor in Chief

It is difficult to understand how the editor published the interview without reading it or understanding how the comments on sexual abuse would be perceived.

Today, they added comments from the Franciscan Friars (reminding readers of the many good works of Father Groeschel) and from Father Groeschel.

Statement from Fr Benedict:

I apologize for my comments. I did not intend to blame the victim. A priest (or anyone else) who abuses a minor is always wrong and is always responsible. My mind and my way of expressing myself are not as clear as they used to be. I have spent my life trying to help others the best that I could. I deeply regret any harm I have caused to anyone.

I do not think he expressed himself poorly. I think he spoke from the heart and said what he believed. It is a rare act of speaking freely that gives the world an indication of the mindset among the male hierarchy of the Church that fosters the abuse and protected the abusers for decades.

Even though Christian institutions are supposed to serve Christ, they often fail the sacred and protect the institution and even the profane. The powerful enjoy their privilege and power. Father Groeschel even alludes to the temptations of fame:

I wouldn’t want to say about any particular person, but people could be foolish enough to take themselves too seriously.

Sometimes we are tempted to believe that religious authorities encountered by Jesus were unique in their hypocrisy and corruption. In fact, they were no better or worse than the institutions that now bear Christ's name. Reform is difficult when institutions have great power. The powerful even try to silence critics by any means necessary.

Lord, forgive Father Groeschel for speaking freely, opening still fresh wounds, and then trying to pretend he merely expressed himself poorly.

Update: Some have suggested that Father Groeschel's comments had more to do with his age and infirmity rather than his attitudes about sexual abuse. Perhaps, but his responses to the interview did not seem vague or confused. There is other evidence that the Catholic hierarchy shrug off sexual misconduct by priests. Here is an example:

When the computer systems manager of the Kansas City-St. Joseph, Mo., diocese told her bishop, Robert Finn, that she had found lewd images of children on a priest's laptop, he replied, "Sometimes boys will be boys," according to sworn testimony that appears in court documents filed Thursday.

Bishop Finn now denies ever making the remark but cannot explain why he waited six months to report the child pornography after being told of its existence.

Perhaps without intending to do so, Father Groeschel gave us all a glimpse into the attitudes that allowed an abuse scandal to continue for many decades and eventually did major harm to the Church.