Diocese asked sex abuse victim if he is gay and if he enjoyed sexual encounters with priest!

longtimeago

Registrant

MJCS

Registrant
The Polish diocese and their comment to the victim is outrageous, hurtful and mean. This is exactly what is wrong with the "Church" and one of the reasons why I left many years ago. They are completely out of touch with reality. Victims carry a lifetime nightmare. There is no need to compound the problem with comments like this. Then there is also the recent comments by the Pope regarding the "selfishness" of people who choose not to have children. I chose not to have children because I didn't want to risk creating another generation of dysfunction, alcoholism and abuse. I know I did the right thing. The so-called Church needs to be told to stay out of people's personal business. They are not qualified to judge us or tell us how to live our lives.
 

longtimeago

Registrant
Church officials wanted an expert “to check the plaintiff’s sexual orientation” and to determine whether he “showed satisfaction with maintaining an intimate relationship” with the man who abused him.

They also wanted to know whether he gained “material benefits” from the sexual encounters with the priest.
-----
I have family members who feel the same way. The altar boy [ any of them ] was just gay and wanted it. - Sad, very sad
 

KMCINVA

Greeter
Staff member
When I read this my stomach turned--how ignorant. Unfortunately, many Catholics blindly follow the words of the clergy without understanding CSA which causes harm to survivors. I have lived it and realized it is a cop out to facing truth about themselves and what they lived.

No child seeks CSA, it is thrushed on them by the perpetrator. Ignorance can do irreparable harm to a survivor.
 

Guss

Registrant
Too bad that wasn't a USA diocese. They could now be slapped with sexual harassment, abuse, and all kinds of goodies.

Traditionally, Catholics have been indoctrinated from small children to see the clergy as above other believers, and to have super spiritual powers. It goes back hundreds and hundreds of years. It was for total control.

Anyone who believes a child wanted it, and asked for it deserves to be shot.
 

longtimeago

Registrant
....

Trigger Warning:

Priest O Priest O wrestled with issues relating to his sexual orientation for most of his adult life. To that end he regularly sought psychological counseling. Whether he disclosed his sexual abuse of teenaged boys during these sessions is unknown. What is known, is that Priest O was repeatedly sexually abusive and that the Diocese knew this years before they took any action against him. Much of what is known about Priest O’s history of sexual abuse was disclosed after he publicly denied that he had been abusive. Even though the Diocese knew this to be false, they never corrected his statements. These factors prompted a number of victims to come forward to discuss their abuse for the first time. Priest O had the art of seducing teenaged boys down to a science. Assigned to a diocesan high school, he would target boys who had transferred into the school from the public school system. These boys were the most likely to be vulnerable to his advances, because they frequently had trouble adjusting to the parochial school environment, and they had fewer friends. The pattern of Priest O’s abuse was always the same. Each boy would be invited into his office. The door would be closed. After talking to the boys, he would suddenly pull them onto his lap. From there, he would undo their pants and put his hands inside their underwear. He would stroke the area around their genitals, running his hands through their pubic hair. Sometimes he spanked them. Once, he invited a boy to the home of a wealthy friend. In their swimming pool, he fondled the boy under his bathing suit. Another time, this same boy, after arguing with his parents rode his bike to Priest O’s residence. Priest O asked him to spend the night and told the boy it was, “like a dream come true for him”. They slept in the same bed. During the night 86 Priest O forcibly orally sodomized the boy by grabbing his head and pushing it down on his penis. The boy described this experience as being one of the most humiliating of his life. That same night Priest O tried also to perform anal sex, but this was not successful because the boy resisted. The next morning Priest O explained to the boy that he had been a homosexual his entire life. Although the boy told his parents that he had spent the night at Priest O’s residence he did not disclose what had happened. After this incident Priest O continued to abuse the boy in his office. One of Priest O’s victims actually transferred from the high school to get away from him. Another boy, who was able to refuse his advances, was particularly angry at Priest O’s later public denial that he had sexually abused boys. Even though he had not been abused, this man came forward because he knew that Priest O had tried to abuse him, and he figured he had been successful with others. At one point, a parish priest called a Diocesan official involved in personnel issues to inform him that a parishioner, well known to this priest, had told him that Priest O had abused his son. The abuse had occurred years before, during the time Priest O had been assigned to a Diocesan high school. The complaint was referred to another Diocesan official who was an attorney. (Grand Jury Exhibit 8Q) This priest met with the victim at length and concluded that he was not credible. Inexplicably, the Diocese offered to pay for his counseling expenses, counseling that presumably was unnecessary if he was lying. The Diocese did not further investigate the factual allegations of the abuse. They did however investigate the victim. The priest who had interviewed the victim illegally sought, and later obtained, information from his confidential high school records. While the information was first communicated verbally, it was later carefully documented in a memo that was placed in Priest O’s secret archive file. (Grand 87 Jury Exhibit 89) The Diocesan officials involved in this matter were certain that this information would impeach the credibility of the victim, should he ever decide to publicize the incidents. Another of Priest O’s victims, an employee of the Diocese, reported his abuse to his therapist and later to the Diocese. After this, the Diocese sent Priest O for a psychological evaluation. (Grand Jury Exhibit 8J) Priest O’s evaluation and treatment report to the Diocese relates that Priest O had been attempting to deal with issues relating to the sexual abuse of boys for many years. Priest O acknowledged in the evaluation that he had abused at least twelve boys during his time assigned to the high school. This included the incident where the victim had been found to be incredible by the Diocesan officials who had interviewed him. The Diocese had even forwarded the results of the investigation of this incident to the treatment professionals charged with evaluating Priest O. Priest O was finally placed on administrative leave in early 2002. Thereafter, a high ranking official in the Diocese advised one of his colleagues of a conversation he had with one of Priest O’s treatment professionals. He reported that, I would not let him (name omitted) continue in any ministry with males, the object of his affection and actions, …they are all related to sex abuse. It can only be described as abusive behavior, the truth is it would not be wise to have him in ministry. (Grand Jury Exhibits 8M,
 

Darren White

Greeter
Staff member
Church officials wanted an expert “to check the plaintiff’s sexual orientation” and to determine whether he “showed satisfaction with maintaining an intimate relationship” with the man who abused him.

They also wanted to know whether he gained “material benefits” from the sexual encounters with the priest.
-----
I have family members who feel the same way. The altar boy [ any of them ] was just gay and wanted it. - Sad, very sad
It's the question/message I get to hear too, at court hearings...
 

MO-Survivor

Greeter
Staff member
Anyone who believes a child wanted it, and asked for it deserves to be shot.
I totally agree, @Guss, with this sentiment.

I grew up in the Catholic church. I was not “all in” so to speak since I was a public school kid and didn’t attend Catholic school at any level. My dad did attend Catholic grade school, and my mom was a married-in Catholic. She was Presbyterian before getting married.

My grandma (dad’s mom) was very much an old fashioned Catholic like many of her generation born around the 1910’s / 1920’s. She didn’t think for herself about spiritual issues no always commented to me she would have to ask the priest. My dad trended that way too, often referring to things as a part of the “mystery” of God. He also rationalized all too easily. That rationalization was a part of his abuse of me but also extended into church issues.

I remember when the church abuse travesty was in the news and getting a lot of attention he said to me, “The media refers to these priests as pedophiles. But technically they were ephebophiles,” as if to excuse what they did or at least to minimize it. I was dumbfounded. I said, “What the hell difference does that make?” They we’re still children and they were still abusers. He acknowledged I was right. But I just had to SMH at his line of thinking. Ugh. There is way too much of that still in culture.
 
Top