The Rev. Benedict Groeschel, a Franciscan friar from New York who appears often on EWTN, a conservative Catholic TV channel, said that priests who abuse children should not go to jail "on their first offense." He also expressed sympathy for Jerry Sandusky, the ex-football coach at Penn State University who was found guilty of 45 counts of child sexual abuse.
Groeschel's comments come as the Roman Catholic Church in the United States is hoping to turn the corner on a decadeslong scandal that has cost billions in settlements and damaged its moral standing.
The 78-year-old Groeschel spoke to National Catholic Register on Tuesday. Here's the excerpt concerning sexual abuse:
Part of your work here at Trinity has been working with priests involved in abuse, no?
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.
Why would that be?
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.
What has the Church learned in terms of preventing this?
We’ve been screening seminarians for decades. That’s nothing new. I’ve been doing it for 40 years, for our old community — the Capuchins — for the diocese, for our small religious community. … It takes a lot of time — four or five hours — to do a psychological screening, and I don’t have a lot of time. There were times in the past when I’d do 30 of them. I’d do it for our community and our sisters.
Also, it’s very expensive. Now, I never got a nickel, but it costs between $800 and $1,200 for a psychological battery. I used to teach psychological evaluations.
You know, we’ve reduced considerably the number of seminarians, and the Church is going to be in plenty of trouble as time goes on — one pastor for two or three parishes. So permanent deacons, laypeople, deaconesses — if you don’t want to call them that — you’re going to need a lot of people helping to keep the parish going. And that may not be a bad thing at all. Years ago, in the New York Archdiocese, you were an assistant for about 25 or 30 years before you became a pastor. We’re making men pastors with five years’ experience.
It was too long before, and it’s too short at present.




Latosha Anderson | Aug 29, 2012 | 1:43pm
For him to make a statement like that, he has done it before. Parents please be careful when it comes to religious (non-religious) people watching your children and holding alot of overnight youth programs.
frequentwind | Aug 29, 2012 | 4:30pm
Yes, sentences should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and not all first offenders are incarcerated. But the rest of his comments are shocking. I realize he’s a priest too, and is going to identify with them, but to do it in such a callous manner—to imply that the priests were seduced by sexy teenage girls, to say that Sandusky was this “poor guy” and it’s the kids’ fault for not reporting it sooner—is disgusting.
Jack | Aug 29, 2012 | 10:21pm
I love the Catholic Church. I have many priests who are dear friends. I will not lump any Catholics into my one word evaluation of this priest’s words. MORON! He should be defrocked (or worse) for utterly shameful ideas and teaching…
Joe Cogan | Aug 30, 2012 | 8:58am
This man is vermin of the lowest order. May he rot in Hell.
herm | Aug 30, 2012 | 9:42am
As far as I can read he didnt say anything about pedophiles. What kind of evil journalism is this, that demonizes people based on their sexual orientation?
Joe Cogan | Aug 30, 2012 | 9:47am
@WTF - pedophiles should not go to jail for their orientation. They should go to jail if they molest a child.
Daniel Burke | Aug 30, 2012 | 9:52am
Herm,
Pedophilia is defined as a sexual disorder by psychologists (attraction to children) and criminally punished when acted upon. Groeschel is clearly talking about “youngsters” - that is, children.
That said, I take your point and have edited the headline.
thanks,
Daniel
Stephen Dalton | Aug 30, 2012 | 12:08pm
This priest is either senile or pervereted!
neil allen | Aug 30, 2012 | 12:18pm
Note that the National Catholic Register took down the article.
Hiding information about pedophile priests is the Catholic thing to do.
KATHLEEN | Aug 30, 2012 | 12:47pm
This man’s background should be investigated and if he has been found to be guilty of abusing children he should be in prison, regardless of his age. Such arrogance! Yuck.
Sandy | Aug 30, 2012 | 12:55pm
I’m disappointed in the National Catholic Register for publishing such uninformed and insensitive remarks.
Todd Flowerday | Aug 30, 2012 | 1:39pm
Maybe women who are ordained to the Catholic priesthood or diaconate for the first time shouldn’t be excommunicated. People who divorce and remarry once, continue to receive the Eucharist. Things like that.
Marion (Mael Muire) | Aug 30, 2012 | 2:13pm
I’m a lifelong Catholic. If I learned that a man - any man - had sexually violated a young relative of mine, I would walk as far as it would take to personally with my own bare claws, make sure that man would sing nothing but soprano for the rest of his life. No lawyers, no letters, no agreements, no pay-outs. My. Claws.
That said, I don’t think Fr. Groeschel was speaking at first about predators who sexually violate children and young people. It was clear to me he was speaking about non-sexual physical affection, which we now realize is also unhealthy between an adult male and an unrelated younger one. Or an unrelated younger female. And is rightly subject to criminal and civil penalties. Even though nothing “below the waist” happened, such behavior may prepare the youngster to become the sexual target of the adult at a later time. Sometimes that vicious intent is present; other times, it’s just an arm around the shoulder, or a hug, and suddenly there’s a report to Child Protective Services. Which is a little over-the-top. Scary stuff.
I can’t imagine why Father Groeschel segued from a conversation about this to “poor Jerry Sandusky,” who was committing full statutory rape on underage males. Father lost me here.
Here’s what I think: I think Father is nearly 80 years old; he was injured terribly when hit by a car about eight years ago, from which he barely recovered, and he has had a stroke. I think he is, as the British say, a little “past it.” I think he lost track of the which thread of the conversation he in - inappropriate but affectionate contact vs. full-on abuse - and got confused. You should have heard some of the doozies my late mother came out with when she would get things muddled in her mind. Endless chains of phone calls from aunts to daughters to nieces to sisters, “Mamma said what-?” “She said *that*?!” “OMG!”
I think a couple of folks at EWTN need to have a face-to-face with Father and get him to understand that it’s no longer a wise idea for him to just ramble on to a journalist without a teleprompter in front of him.
And while I agree that his remarks were beyond unfortunate, revealing a woeful lack of awareness of the seriousness of this problem in the Church as well as in the larger society, unless you yourself have had up-close-and-personal dealings with an infirm relative near his age, I don’t think you have the proper standing to judge Father G. as an “evil person”. Not until we know more about his current medical (neurological) condition.
P | Aug 30, 2012 | 8:53pm
Father Groeschel lost me at “It’s an understandable thing”. No. It is not. Not ever, not even once.
What ever happened to the Catholic idea of ‘occasion of sin’ which is exactly the situation he describes and is every Catholic’s duty to avoid? And, every professional training class in child abuse makes it clear that it is the adult who must remove himself immediately from a such a situation. Groeschel is trying to put spin on a serious problem the church has with some priests, and in doing so, is making the priest the victim.
Nice try, Father, but it’s the adult who has to act like an adult, especially around a “confused” child. And it’s doubly disgusting that he singles out “needy” children since that is the textbook target for a pedophile/pedarast.
Murray Gow | Aug 31, 2012 | 6:34pm
For a very different approach to child abuse one might check out the sermon by Cambridge NT scholar, David Instone-Brewer: http://www.instonebrewer.com/visualSermons/Jesus+Children/_Sermon.htm
Sharon Sitek | Sep 1, 2012 | 6:51pm
This son-of-a bitch is a lunatic. . .
D Alexander Fauntleroy-Harris | Sep 6, 2012 | 7:30pm
...oh my dear Jesus Christ in heaven…never in all the years since i’ve watched EWTN have I been more appalled by comments given. To say that I am truly saddened is an understatement. Not one reason in his world nor any explanation can justify the willfull and premeditated sexual abuse of any child. Not. One. Reason.
Roam | Sep 14, 2012 | 7:19am
So what he’s saying is that we should wait until a second life has been utterly destroyed before we even begin to act? I’m sorry but no. Just… no. These words are indefensible and utterly disgusting to come from a person people look up to. It doesn’t matter what sex the attacker or the victim was. It doesn’t matter what kind of act it was. It doesn’t matter what the intent was. What matters is that it was rape/molestation.
I’m sick of people trying to dress this up pretty to excuse the behaviour, because the kind of trauma it causes can outright destroy lives, whether figuratively or literally with the following suicide.