Pennsylvania Priest Caught in Sex Scandal

[Prodigal_Son]

Yes and no. I do think there have been people using the different designations to imply that one is not as bad as the other perhaps not on this thread, but in other threads that involved the priest abuse scandal. That is the danger of using the different terms. That said, as a child abuse survivor, I have grown very much in favor of complete education regarding the sexual abuse of minors. That includes the knowledge and the use of the proper terminologies. For instance, many people I know wouldn’t think an adult finding a teenager sexually attractive is a pedophile, but a bit creepy and taboo. Some of them have even argued with me that a teenager knows exactly what they are getting themselves into when they engage in a sexual encounter with an adult, no matter who or what the adult is. I have contended that, yes, there are teens who do know what they are getting themselves into (we’ve all known the few girls or boys who were like that), but have also argued that there are also teens who really don’t know or understand what was happening to them. Some may have been abused as younger children and have continued on as a teen with different people because their previous perpetrators have screwed up their heads so much. These people who don’t think anything of adults on teen sexual activity, might think a little more deeply about it if they realized that it actually would be called ephebophilia and not some “All men are dirty old men” mentality or that there’s nothing wrong with a hot, sexually experienced, 20-something-year-old teacher showing the ropes to a 16-year-old boy. People don’t like to be labeled, especially with terms that sound sick.

When you know the information in full, you can make better informed opinions about the subject. It will also help stop the stigma I and so many other survivors suffer throughout our lives because of the ignorance of most of the public regarding this subject. I realized this during my VIRTUS training. Most people have very little knowledge on sexual abuse and that is because no one feels comfortable talking about it or reading about it…even those who are aware due to family members or friends who have been abused as young children or teenagers. They always just want to sweep it under the carpet and pretend it didn’t happen.

An important thing to realize here: There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between various cases of sexual abuse. Compare two cases:

(1) A man engages in a long-term abusive relationship with a 10-year-old, in which the 10-year-old is terrified of telling anyone, experiences threats and verbal abuse, and so on.

(2) A man propositions a 15-year-old for a one-time meeting, where the 15-year-old is interested in having sex. The man does not force the 15-year-old to do anything.

Both these cases are deeply wrong. But the first is so much more wrong than the other that it’s hardly even a comparison!

Now notice that we throw the same word at both cases: the men are “pedophiles”. And, in this culture, being a pedophile means being irrevocably evil. Who would not hide their kids around a pedophile? And yet, is there any hint of a reason that you should hide your kids around the man in situation #2? Do we think that falsely accusing the man in #2, by calling him a pedophile instead of an abusive homosexual, will somehow HELP things?

Maybe I’m missing something here. But it seems like painting with a broad brush is a dangerous idea. I agree that education is important.

 

[seekerz]

The way to protect the kids varies by age group and type of predator. Lumping all cases as the same is just sensationalism without a desire for solutions. I’m sure that’s what many in the media are interested in. You seem to be in favor of keeping the public uninformed, which is a dangerous thing.

I’m not the one in favor of confusing the public by introducing unfamiliar and impractical distinctions.

Tell me, based on what you know of this alleged incident how would you warn the public, say, in case the accused were released on a technicality? Would you have access to the age range of his past victims to verify which -philia to classify him in or would you make assumptions based on this single incident? Would you have access to his mental health records to know whether he was attracted to ALL age groups or just to particular ones? How would your warnings differ based on age range of his victims? Parents, you can leave your 4 to 9 yr olds in his care but not your 91/2 to 16 yr olds? Really?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If it is abuse, yes. If a man or a woman preys on anyone at any age using physical or emotional force and abuse, it’s equally horrific.

Huh? I just do not understand this view. Are you saying that a person who brutally violates and harms many children is no worse of a sinner than a person who fondles one child? Are you serious?

Of course, both are serious offenses. But the severity of the two offenses is obviously different.

 

[SaintAugustine]

If it is abuse, yes. If a man or a woman preys on anyone at any age using physical or emotional force and abuse, it’s equally horrific.

I don’t even think psychologists agree on that, so I guess we will have to differ on that. I believe the trauma caused to younger children is worse, and, therefore more horrific. The self-knowledge, ability to protect oneself, etc. are less for a child, and therefore, the crime against a child is more horrific. I think lumping all ages together is too simplistic.

 

[seekerz]

Really? So a man who preys on a 6-year-old is just as horrific as a man who entices a 17-year-old or a 20-year-old to have sex? I don’t see it that way.

For a Catholic PRIEST yes, they are EQUALLY horrific, but the 6 yr old - well that’s horrific among people of any faith.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’m not the one in favor of confusing the public by introducing unfamiliar and impractical distinctions.

Tell me, based on what you know of this alleged incident how would you warn the public, say, in case the accused were released on a technicality? Would you have access to the age range of his past victims to verify which -philia to classify him in or would you make assumptions based on this single incident? Would you have access to his mental health records to know whether he was attracted to ALL age groups or just to particular ones? How would your warnings differ based on age range of his victims? Parents, you can leave your 4 to 9 yr olds in his care but not your 91/2 to 16 yr olds? Really?

So you should just assume he harms children of all ages, without stopping to check for evidence? In other words, you should declare him guilty of crimes you have no evidence about?

And this is mercy?

 

[seekerz]

So you should just assume he harms children of all ages, without stopping to check for evidence? In other words, you should declare him guilty of crimes you have no evidence about?

And this is mercy?

You can’t declare him guilty of anything if a court sets him free on a technicality, which was my example. Seriously, as a parent, would you leave your little kids with a person you wouldn’t trust with your teenagers simply because you have no evidence he ever touched a little kid? That’s like inviting an accused murderer into your house because he ONLY was arrested for killing his wife and not his child! Where is the ‘mercy’ for the future victims?

 

[SaintAugustine]

For a Catholic PRIEST yes, they are EQUALLY horrific, but the 6 yr old - well that’s horrific among people of any faith.

What? The crime is more horrific based on the perpetrator (I.e. a Catholic priest)? So, a teacher or coach doing them is less horrific?

 

[seekerz]

I don’t even think psychologists agree on that, so I guess we will have to differ on that. I believe the trauma caused to younger children is worse, and, therefore more horrific. The self-knowledge, ability to protect oneself, etc. are less for a child, and therefore, the crime against a child is more horrific. I think lumping all ages together is too simplistic.

Psychologists don’t seem to agree on much where these disorders are concerned. They can get my serious attention when they actually come up with a cure for paraphilias, or whatever they call this thing that makes some people see prey where others see children.

 

[Sarabande]

I don’t even think psychologists agree on that, so I guess we will have to differ on that. I believe the trauma caused to younger children is worse, and, therefore more horrific. The self-knowledge, ability to protect oneself, etc. are less for a child, and therefore, the crime against a child is more horrific. I think lumping all ages together is too simplistic.

Yes, I think we will have to disagree. I know and understand the trauma the abuse I suffered as a 5-year-old caused me, but I also know how horribly palpable it is to people of other ages who have been raped and sexually abused in other ways.

 

[seekerz]

What? The crime is more horrific based on the perpetrator (I.e. a Catholic priest)? So, a teacher or coach doing them is less horrific?

Most definitely yes! Yes and yes, again. Unlike a coach or a teacher, a priest is supposed to tend our souls not violate them!

 

[seekerz]

Yes, I think we will have to disagree. I know and understand the trauma the abuse I suffered as a 5-year-old caused me, but I also know how horribly palpable it is to people of other ages who have been raped and sexually abused in other ways.

Exactly. It’s just like murder - the younger victim might seem more tragic to us, but for those on the receiving end, dead is dead regardless of age.

 

[SaintAugustine]

Most definitely yes! Yes and yes, again. Unlike a coach or a teacher, a priest is supposed to tend our souls not violate them!

Wow. I have a feeling the parents of a victim of abuse by a non-priest may disagree that their child’s abuse was less horrific because it was done by an Uncle or friend.

This does explain a lot, regarding your viewpoint.

 

[Sarabande]

Huh? I just do not understand this view. Are you saying that a person who brutally violates and harms many children is no worse of a sinner than a person who fondles one child? Are you serious?

Of course, both are serious offenses. But the severity of the two offenses is obviously different.

No, a man who brutally violates and harms many teenagers and adults are committing just as horrific acts as a man who brutally violates and harms many children.

A man who rapes or fondles one child is equally as horrific as a man who rapes or fondles one teen or adult.

That said, no abuse should be tolerated. Whether the perpetrator did it to one victim or many victims, we shouldn’t be saying, “Well, he only did it to one child. That’s not so bad as doing it to 10 children.” Yes, in terms of the number of victims a perpetrator has or the type of abuse, there can be technical levels of severity. But I can tell you, from personal experience, a victim will still feel it pretty heavily and the scars will still be cut just as deep.

 

[seekerz]

Wow. I have a feeling the parents of a victim of abuse by a non-priest may disagree that their child’s abuse was less horrific because it was done by an Uncle or friend.

This does explain a lot, regarding your viewpoint.

No, the sexual abuse is not less horrific. The violation of trust is. Your priest is one of the person’s you’re supposed to take the abused child to as part of the healing process.

I will go back to my murder analogy. If a person is stabbed by a robber or a doctor, it’s still murder, but in the latter case the violation is greater because this is the person who’s supposed to be trusted to put you back in one piece!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You can’t declare him guilty of anything if a court sets him free on a technicality, which was my example. Seriously, as a parent, would you leave your little kids with a person you wouldn’t trust with your teenagers simply because you have no evidence he ever touched a little kid?

Yes, I would. I probably wouldn’t let him babysit, unless I knew him quite well for a long period.

He’s a person, not a virus.

 

[SaintAugustine]

No, the sexual abuse is not less horrific. The violation of trust is.

Nope.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No, a man who brutally violates and harms many teenagers and adults are committing just as horrific acts as a man who brutally violates and harms many children.

A man who rapes or fondles one child is equally as horrific as a man who rapes or fondles one teen or adult.

That said, no abuse should be tolerated. Whether the perpetrator did it to one victim or many victims, we shouldn’t be saying, “Well, he only did it to one child. That’s not so bad as doing it to 10 children.” Yes, in terms of the number of victims a perpetrator has or the type of abuse, there can be technical levels of severity. But I can tell you, from personal experience, a victim will still feel it pretty heavily and the scars will still be cut just as deep.

But read the original post. If a young person is seeking out sex with an adult, I don’t think those wounds will cut as deep. The action is still deeply wrong, but it’s in no way comparable to the sort of way that you were abused.

 

[seekerz]

Yes, I would. I probably wouldn’t let him babysit, unless I knew him quite well for a long period.

He’s a person, not a virus.

Good luck with that. Many people who offend sexually, are well know to parents and victim, and have been known for a long time. I’d settle for the offender agreeing to avoid temptation and staying away from ALL children, ALL the time.

 

[SaintAugustine]

But read the original post. If a young person is seeking out sex with an adult, I don’t think those wounds will cut as deep. The action is still deeply wrong, but it’s in no way comparable to the sort of way that you were abused.

Unless its a priest, apparently…