donderdag 30 augustus 2012

Priesters en kindermisbruik

Father Benedict Groeschel, de uitgever en de organisatie waar Groeschel deel van uitmaakt, hebben intussen hun excuses aangeboden op krachtige manier.  Zie helemaal onder dit bericht.

ANP meldt dat een Amerikaanse priester, Benedict Groeschel, aan een katholiek tijdschrift heeft gemeldt dat misbruikte kinderen vaak de priester hebben verleid. 

De man is correct geciteerd; wel een dramatisch geval van domheid en immoraliteit. Hij zegt dat priesters die voor het eerst schuldig worden bevonden aan misbruik niet moeten worden gestraft, want 'ze waren niet van plan een misdrijf te plegen'.  Leuk argument.  Ik vermoord mijn buurvrouw maar ik moet geen straf krijgen als het de eerste keer is, 'want ik was niet van plan een misdrijf te plegen.'

Dat misbruik van kinderen, dat overkomt iemand gewoon? Daar kan je niks aan doen?  Groeschel, oprichter van de Franciscaner Broeders van de Vernieuwing, een conservatieve monnikenorde, zal je priester maar zijn.

Hij legt de schuld nogal bij de kinderen.  ''Stel je voor dat een man een zenuwinzinking krijgt en een jongere komt achter hém aan. In veel gevallen is de jongere - 14, 16, 18 jaar oud - de verleider'', zei Groeschel tegen de National Catholic Register.  Hij denkt dat de tieners op zoek zijn naar een vaderfiguur om mee te knuffelen.  De man heeft ze duidelijk niet op een rijtje.

Wie een vertrouwenspositie heeft, en dat heeft een priester, heeft nooit een excuus, zenuwinzinking of niet.  En even voor de goede orde, heel RK Amerika is over de onzin van deze Groeschel gevallen.  Hij representeert noch de kerk noch enige andere RK organisatie met zijn uitspraken.  Criminelen moeten worden bestraft, en kindermisbruik is in alle gevallen crimineel.                      

Hier de hele tekst van het interview, en hier het gewraakte deel van dit interview:
[Interviewer]: Part of your work here at Trinity has been working with priests involved in abuse, no?

[Father Groeschel]: A little bit, yes; but you know, in those cases, they have to leave. And some of them profoundly — profoundly — penitential, horrified. 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.

[Interviewer]: Why would that be?

[Father Greoschel]: 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.

It's an understandable thing, and you know where you find it, among other clergy or important people; you look at teachers, attorneys, judges, social workers. Generally, if they get involved, it's heterosexually, and if it's a priest, he leaves and gets married — that's the usual thing — and gets a dispensation. A lot of priests leave quickly, get civilly married and then apply for the dispensation, which takes about three years.

But 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.

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.

I think perhaps part of the reason would be an embarrassment, that it brings the case out into the open, and the girl's name is there, or people will figure out what's there, or the youngster involved — you know, it's not put in the paper, but everybody knows; they're talking about it.

At this point, (when) any priest, any clergyman, any social worker, any teacher, any responsible person in society would become involved in a single sexual act — not necessarily intercourse — they're done. And I'm inclined to think, on their first offense, they should not go to jail because their intention was not committing a crime.
De excuses die snel werden gemaakt:

Eerst het online magazine:
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

Statement from the Community of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal:
The Community of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal sincerely apologizes for the comments made by Fr. Benedict Groeschel in an interview released August 27 by the National Catholic Register. In that interview, Fr. Benedict made comments that were inappropriate and untrue. A child is never responsible for abuse. Any abuser of a child is always responsible, especially a priest. Sexual abuse of a minor is a terrible crime and should always be treated as such. We are sorry for any pain his comments may have caused. Fr. Benedict has dedicated his life to helping others and these comments were completely out of character. He never intended to excuse abuse or implicate the victims. We hope that these unfortunate statements will not overshadow the great good Fr. Benedict has done in housing countless homeless people, feeding innumerable poor families, and bringing healing, peace and encouragement to so many.
Fr Benedict helped found our community 25 years ago with the hope of bringing the healing peace of Jesus Christ to our wounded world. Our desire has always been to lift-up humanity and never to hurt. About seven years ago Fr. Benedict was struck by a car and was in a coma for over a month. In recent months his health, memory and cognitive ability have been failing. He has been in and out of the hospital. Due to his declining health and inability to care for himself, Fr. Benedict had moved to a location where he could rest and be relieved of his responsibilities. Although these factors do not excuse his comments, they help us understand how such a compassionate man could have said something so wrong, so insensitive, and so out of character. Our prayers are with all those who have been hurt by his comments, especially victims of sexual abuse.

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.

2 opmerkingen:

John zei

Maar gelukkig valt het katholieke misbruik verder nog reuze mee, of niet Jos Strengholt?

Jos Strengholt zei

Ha die John. Heb je al aangetoond dat het meer bij RK is dan elders? Het valt nergens mee.