Skip to main content

Making Room for Evil

Content Warning: I get a bit graphic in my last paragraph in bold below.  Readers may wish to skip it, especially victims of abuse.  I'm trying to point out what this crime really consists of.  Sometimes the language needs to match the act so those who don't understand start to get a clue.

***

Thanks to those of you who offered me support via email and Facebook and elsewhere, regarding my Rant of Pain

What steams me the most is how otherwise good Catholics say things like this - what a Catholic writer and fellow blogger said below (from a combox, directed at me and my position on child abuse, which I go into in my post What Rape Is)

Just to clarify--again. (1)There is a distinction between pedophilia and pederasty. The distinction exists for a reason and shouldn't be disregarded in order to indulge one's emotional outrage. (2)There is also a distinction between forcible and statutory rape (ask a victim of forcible about that.) (3)And yes, it is quite possible for a teenager to seduce an adult. That is simply true, and saying so does not mean -- repeat, does not mean -- that one is "excusing" rape, or child molestation or abuse.
***

Let's take this horrific argument point by point.  I do this not to be rough on this writer, whose work is generally admirable, but because I'm learning that she represents entrenched thinking in the Catholic Church and in society at large - as witnessed by Fr. Groeschel, who meant well, but who blamed the victims - and so I think I have an obligation to tackle this nonsense.  Let's begin ...


(1) There is a distinction between pedophilia and pederasty. The distinction exists for a reason and shouldn't be disregarded in order to indulge one's emotional outrage.

This woman really thinks I don't get it.  She buys the Bill Donohue line that the Church Sex Scandals were not about child abuse at all, but about too many homos in the priesthood.  She accuses one of "indulging one's emotional outrage" because when post-pubescent boys of age 14, 15, or 16 are molested by priests, one should apparently not be outraged.  One should rather say, "This is pederasty!  Not pedophilia!" - without realizing that pederasty is simply pedophilia between an adult male and his under age male victim - pederasty is a sub-set of pedophilia.  And since I am the "one" who is "indulging one's emotional outrage" (her comment was addressed to me, as you can see on the original post), am I to relax a bit and say, "Well, boys will be boys.  Thank God it's typically a priest forcing a 14-year-old boy to commit sodomy and not a priest forcing a 14 year old girl to have intercourse!  Thank God it's not as bad as all that!  And the bishops enabling this behavior - well, they're enabling pederasty, not pedophilia, so we're OK!"  Is that what I'm supposed to say?  Does this spurious distinction make any sense???

(2)There is also a distinction between forcible and statutory rape (ask a victim of forcible about that.) 

Absolutely, entirely and abominably wrong.  Wrong to the point of being evil, that's how wrong this is.  Victims of statutory rape are forced to have sex, because CHILDREN CAN NOT CONSENT TO HAVE SEX, not even teens who act provocatively.  That's why we call it RAPE.  When children have sex with an adult, it is always a violent crime and the child is the victim - a victim who will be scarred for life.  Ask any survivor of incest or statutory rape about that.  They do not have the capacity to consent to sex.  To argue that they do is to make the case of NAMBLA , an organization which lobbies for the legalization of what this writer calls "pederasty".  That this writer should dig in her heels on this subject, when both Natural Law and common sense and my own writings on this that she has read make it quite plain that RAPE IS RAPE IS RAPE IS RAPE is beyond me.  Hell, yes, it makes one "indulge one's emotional outrage", and it damn well should.  I have pointed out again and again that a minor does not have the capacity to consent to sex with an adult, but this point is conveniently ignored, in typically internet argument fashion. 

(3) And yes, it is quite possible for a teenager to seduce an adult. That is simply true, and saying so does not mean -- repeat, does not mean -- that one is "excusing" rape, or child molestation or abuse.

It is NOT possible for a child to seduce an adult, even a teen aged child, EVER.  How anyone can possibly think this is utterly unfathomable to me.

For starters, no one can be "seduced".  No one can be led to perform a sex act he or she does not want to perform, shy of rape (see above).  But more than that, even though there are many teens who behave provocatively toward adults, such behavior is always an indication of a personality problem on the part of the teen that needs to be addressed, it is "acting out", and such behavior is coming from a person of limited rational, spiritual and emotional capacity, and is directed toward a fully formed adult.  It is always up to an adult to be responsible enough to refrain from committing an act of utter depravity and evil; it is up to any adult to choose - either to molest or not to molest - a child, even a teen "who wants it really bad" (as we used to say in the locker room). 

This is simply and obviously blaming the victim.


  • Yes, teens can behave seductively.  No, they can never seduce an adult. 

  • Yes, molesters are broken and damaged men who need our sympathy and help.  No, their behavior is never excusable, not even if they're on the verge of a nervous breakdown and targeted by a horny 14-year-old (Fr. Groeschel's scenario - which, incidentally sounds much more like the manipulative excuse of a man in therapy than a typical real life situation).

So there you have it. 


The reason Fr. Groeschel's comments were not edited out of the National Catholic Register is that many people - including many good Catholics - agree with him. 

So when Father Chester repeatedly forces his penis into the anus of his 14-year-old altar boy and tells him not to mention this on fear of damnation and hell ... well, it's pederasty (not pedophilia), it's statutory rape (not legitimate rape), and the kid clearly wanted it.  So many of them do, after all.

It's certainly not Father Chester's fault!  That much we know.

Good Jesus Christ, have mercy on us all.




Comments

Anonymous said…
"pederasty is a sub-set of pedophilia"

No, it's not.

And I notice in your example of "comparing" child abuse, you couldn't actually bring yourself to present a true comparison between pederasty and pedophilia. Were you afraid they'd agree one was worse than the other?
Kevin O'Brien said…
Bobn, of course pederasty is a subset of pedophilia. They are equally evil. What the hell is the matter with you?
Anonymous said…
Statutory rape isn't necessarily the same thing, even if it's bad.

Put it this way:

A guy in his 20s wants to have sex with a 16-year-old girl who is physically an adult in every possible way.

A guy in his 20s wants to have sex with a 7-year-old boy.

Those are both the same thing to you? Surely not.
Anonymous said…
And keep in mind that prior to the past century, most human beings would have thought it obvious that post-puberty, people are adults. That's why coming-of-age ceremonies historically took place at about 13, not at 21. That's why it used to be common for people to get married in their teens.
Kevin O'Brien said…
Anonymous, if a 20 year old is having sex with a sexually developed 16 year old, it's still rape, since she does not have the maturity to consent.

And if any 20-year-old were convicted of statutory rape in such a case, the judge would take their nearness of age into account when sentencing - but such a mitigating circumstance does not alter the essential fact that STATUTORY RAPE IS RAPE and is a violent act - as it forces an act onto a CHILD (pubsecent or not) who does not have the capacity to consent to such an act.

So how about a 50 year old priest having sex with a 14 year old boy or girl who "wants it". Is that rape? You're damn right it is.

It is absolutely horrific to me that people are trying to excuse statutory rape. Anonymous, your attitude is sinful and hurtful and frankly rather sick.

By the way, I'd like to hear from ONE PARENT who thinks that statutory rape is fine and dandy and quite excusable. My Facebook friend who defended it is not a parent; Dena Hunt who defends it is not a parent; Fr. Groeschel who makes excuses for it is not a parent.

My friends who are parents not only realize the limited capacity of post-pubescent children, but say things as sensible as this (from an email to me sent by a friend of mine who has kids) ...

'Simple hobbit that I am, I don't think it is possible in any way, size, shape or form for a teenager to "seduce" and adult. You don't need any sophisticated philosophical or theological or scientific arguments to show that. On the contrary, if you have to explain it to someone, that person is a Grade A dolt, and is not worth the effort.'

Popular posts from this blog

Escape from Utopia

“Karen, I was right!  Someone escaped!  She says they are a cult!” I said to my wife, exuberant. It was Monday, Labor Day.  We were at the Lake of the Ozarks, in mid-Missouri, and Karen, my wife, noticed a group of people standing near the overlook on the hill above the lake’s dam.  A man about my age was about to take a picture of a group of teenagers with the lake in the background.  All of them were well groomed, well behaved and wearing polo shirts and caps that said “Shepherdsfield” on them.  Karen offered to take the picture for this man, so he could be in it as well.  He was very grateful. “What’s Shepherdsfield?” I asked after the photo had clicked. “We’re a Christian community near Fulton, Missouri,” the man answered.  “We’re on our Reward Trip.  These young people have been working very hard all summer, and we’re taking them on a Reward Trip before school starts again.”  My eyes locked with one of the young people....

Charlie Johnston's Followers take the Next Wrong Step

NOTE - On April 29, 2106, Charlie Johnston responded to this post and my previous one with outright lies, doing his best to libel me in the process. I go into detail about that here - Charlie Johnston Lies about Me - and I Admire Him for It! Charlie is one of the most outrageous frauds in the Catholic Church. He actually fascinates me - in a sad way. Read on ... Charlie Johnston is a false prophet. His archbishop has "strongly" advised Catholics to be cautious of him.  His archbishop has also banned him from speaking in his own archdiocese. Charlie, in the great tradition of false prophets, has spun this warning to his own advantage , and Charlie's True Believers have rallied around him and have been guzzling the Kool-Aid since the bishop's letter and Charlie's spin appeared earlier this week. I posted about Charlie Johnston last fall , detailing at least one of his prophecies that have proven false, and detailing, from evidence on his Faceb...

A Note on my Religious Work

For those of you who know me from EWTN, the Society of GK Chesterton, the Prairie Troubadours or The St. Austin Review, I am no longer affiliated with any of those groups. "The truth will set you free" ( John 8:32 ) "To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." ( John 18:37 ) If we deny the truth, we are bad Christians and bad human beings. If we put our faith in a lie - including a Big Lie - we are bad Christians and bad human beings. If we endorse vulgarity, violence, bullying, gaslighting, fraud, irrational conspiracy theories, sedition and hate, we are bad Christians and bad human beings. Since March of 2020, I have felt like a character in the play Rhinoceros by Eugene Ionesco.  In that play, the bestial inhumanity of rhinoceroses becomes a fad and people start turning into them - willingly discarding reason and free will and mocking others who don...