Bishop tells newspaper he was once abused by priest

[Algorem]

http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/cleveland/index.ssf?/base/news-22/11369705428560.xml&storylist=cleveland

1/11/2006, 5:00 a.m. ET
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit, arguing for more time for sex abuse victims to sue the Roman Catholic Church, says he was abused by a priest 60 years ago.

Gumbleton, 75, told The Washington Post in an interview published Wednesday that he was "inappropriately touched" by a priest in 1945 when he was a ninth grader at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit.

He is believed to be the first U.S. bishop to disclose that he was a victim of clergy sexual abuse and also the first to endorse proposals in several states, including Ohio, to remove time limits that have prevented many victims of sex abuse from suing the church.


"I don't want to exaggerate that I was terribly damaged," Gumbleton told the Post in a telephone interview. "It was not the kind of sexual abuse that many of the victims experience."...

[zann725]

1. Good and bad news. He's a a Bishop, admits it happens, BUT importantly

says, "I wasn't terribly damaged." If he TRULY supports extending time for other "victims" to file claims, and receive "damages," why would he add such a NEGATING comment as: "I wasn't terribly damaged." (Translated: For the record, I'll express empathy for those dmaged, but ESSENTIALLY: 'It's okay...keep moving, look the other way.')

[shrike]

2. That wasn't my take

He was just being truthful: for HIM it wasn't terribly damaging.

I knew Gumbleton casually many moons ago, when he was in Detroit; good guy.

[ret5hd]

4. MY take on it then is...

that if it wasn't damaging for him, it was because he liked it. If he liked it, he's gay. If he's gay, he can't be a priest. If he can't be a priest, he damn sure can't be a bishop.

I am sure we'll be reading of his resignation soon. :sarcasm:

[Bridget Burke]

5. Actually, gays can be priests.

But they are supposed to be celibate--just like the het priests.

[shrike]

12. Huh?

[Bridget Burke]

7. Yes, but you actually read the whole article.

Glib remarks are much easier for those who just read the headline.

[RazzleDazzle]

3. It's not uncommon for victims to "compare" and see that others

had it worse. It's not really negating, it's an acknowledgment that there are people who have suffered worse.

It takes survivors a while to understand that ALL abuse is abuse, and that degress don't matter that much. The underlying betrayal and abuse damages nonetheless.

[Elidor]

10. What he's saying is that what he suffered is nothing compared to

What others have suffered. He's saying he doesn't seek sympathy or pity for himself, but rather for those who have had much more traumatic experiences.

[shrike]

11. That's exactly how I took it as well

I think he was being careful to say he wasn't seeking pity or sympathy as well.
I myself suffered some abuse (not sexual) in childhood, but I would be the first to say it wasn't NEARLY as bad as some of the horror stories I've read about.

[DemBones DemBones]

6. Was he "inappropriately touched" or was he "abused"?

"Inappropriate touching" should not be used as a synonym for "sexual abuse." "Inappropriate touching" might mean being hugged, being patted on the butt, even being patted on the arm, whatever the complaining party defines as "inappropriate."

The term "sexual abuse" should be reserved for indicating serious offenses such as rape or coerced sexual acts.

[Bridget Burke]

8. Please read the article. He explains what happened.

It was NOT "rape or coerced sexual acts," but would definitely be considered "molestation." Do we know how many of the abuse cases reported did not fit YOUR definition of abuse? Still, they were illegal.

If a pretty female teacher fucks a 15-year old boy, many say he's "lucky."

[0007]

9. "Inappropriately touched?" By tongue or hand or both?

On the penis, anus, mouth or all three?

I doubt if the good Bishop got winked off.

[MichiganVote]

13. Sexual abuse commonly refers to criminal offenses. A pat on the but

may be illegal in terms of an assualt or be determined sexual harrassment in business, schools etc.

I think you're missing the point of this article which is to show that some victims are so damanged that they are in need of more time to recover from the illegal acts. Hence--a change in law is needed to fairly address their right to legal redress.

Seems reasonable to me.