Sure, I fondled a 13 year old--but it wasn't abuse

I know the Foley scandal is old news, but I came across this article and just had to pass it on. After Foley resigned, he claimed (through his lawyer) that his priest sexually abused him between the ages of 13-15. The priest has since admitted that this indeed did take place. However, the priest apparently doesn’t understand what all the fuss is about. Here are some highlights from his confession:

 

"He seemed to like it, you know? So it was sort of more like a spontaneous thing."

 

Mercieca, however, rejected the idea that he sexually abused Foley, saying, "See abuse, it's a bad word, you know, because abuse, you abuse someone against his will. But it involved just spontaneousness, you know?"

 

"I would say that if I offended him, I am sorry, but to remember the good time we had together, you know?" he said. "And how really we enjoyed each other's company. And to let bygones be bygones. Don't keep dwelling on this thing, you know?"

 

Matthew Doig, the guy who interviewed the priest, went into further detail:

 

"They went skinny-dipping together, the father talked about naked back massages, that type of thing," Doig said. "But again, nothing beyond that [even though the priest admitted to “fondling,” but not “rape or penetration or anything like that you know”]. But he said at some point there was an incident between the two of them that he blamed on tranquilizers and alcohol that probably led to the moment that Mark Foley is talking about."

 

So a priest partakes in tranquilizers and alcohol with a prepubescent minor leading to naked and sexual encounters, yet he doesn’t see any problem in it because the boy “seemed to like it.”

 

I am positively dumbstruck.

 

-W.