Thomas Roberts on CNN: did we miss something?

Thank you. I missed the beginning so I was hoping that Roberts' sexuality was somehow mentioned at the beginning. I guess not.

In addition to all that you mentioned, doesn't Roberts have a long-time partner? To omit all mention of him was glaring. Every time they showed him walking his dog alone, I wanted to shout, "Where's his man?"

The piece talked about how much Roberts' "family" helped him, only referring to his bio family. But we would have been given a more positive, more true, picture of Roberts' life today if we'd seen him happily partnered.

Somebody decided to shove him back into the closet, and it was frustrating.

Brian, your comments are exactly right. I'm not surprised, however, that Roberts sexuality was not mentioned in the piece, though, because to do so would highlight Anderson Cooper's lack of forthrightness on this issue. Anderson's hiding affected his full reporting of this story. Some newsman.

Yes, he does have a partner (so far as we last heard, at least). From what the story showed, he has four legs and shaggy black hair, and requires regular walks.

Oh Brian, you are so bad!

It is entirely possible that the partner chose, for whatever reason, not to participate. And that is certainly his right. But there is no doubt that if Roberts were married to a woman, that fact would have at least been mentioned.

In the end, the picture we were given of Roberts' life today was inaccurate. And that is just bad journalism.

I just don't understand why Anderson or Thomas could of least mention Thomas like the other victim also
went to the priest because he questioning his sexuality, the news article during the trial
made it clear and I quote

"Toohey, 59, a former Roman Catholic priest and Calvert Hall chaplain, was sentenced to 18 months in jail for sexually abusing Roberts after his mother asked the priest to counsel her then-14-year-old son, who was struggling with his parents' divorce and questions about his sexuality."

Now people on-online and blogs are finding Thomas is gay and think it is because of the abuse. And there is no mention of how much support he got from his partner. Like Goldie said, "That is just bad journalism." And in the end I believes while it will help abuse victims, it is disservice to the gay community making it seems homosexuality is cause by some traumatic events. And all of this could have been prevent if they mention Thomas was geting counseling on sexuality meaning he have these feeling before the abuse started.

Thanks CNN for letting down the gay community again.

actually, i was happythey didn't talk about his sexuality in that segment, because i know the right-wingers would have used the opportunity to say, "oh he was molested, that's why he is gay".

Johnosahon

That may be one of the reason why they ommitted mention Thomas' sexuality but all you need to is google Thomas
Roberts and you know that he is gay. It would of help if Thomas was still in the closet like
Anderson but he is not. There is already talk on conservative blogs that Thomas was recruited by the priest into the gay lifestyle.

Hopefully this will come to Thomas attention and he give an interview clearing this up and prevent
the use of his story on anti-gay agenda.

"actually, i was happythey didn't talk about his sexuality in that segment, because i know the right-wingers would have used the opportunity to say, "oh he was molested, that's why he is gay"."

They are already going to think that because he is, in fact, gay. God forbid he actual confront the issue and set it straight. It's a shame you would have him live with the same shame and fear about his sexuality that he had from the molestation - fear of what others will say and think, afraid to talk about it.

I found it very peculiar Roberts didn't talk about his romantic life. I remember when he came out I read an article that said he was in a long-term relationship.

I guess the reasoning was, like Johnosahon said, they didn't want to equate molestation w/ gay. However, by not addressing Roberts' sexual orientation at all, they inadvertently did make molestation = gay.

Cooper could've EASILY asked Roberts about his romantic life & sexual orientation, and how the molestation has/has not affected either.

Once again, CNN fumbles the ball.

So much for the "most trusted name in news."

The thing I've always found puzzling about the "molestation makes men gay" argument is that people seem to use the reverse when it comes to lesbians. People assume that women must have been turned OFF men (and so "turned lesbian") due to abuse or bad experiences at the hands of men. When Ellen DeGeneres went public about the fact that she had been molested by her stepfather, she felt it was necessary to explain that that wasn't what made her a lesbian; that she had already known she was lesbian before that happened.

So why is it that people think men get turned ON to men by molestation, but women get turned OFF men by the same experience?

If being molested by a man is so traumatic for a woman that it supposedly "turns" her on to women, then why wouldn't it have the same effect on a man? Why wouldn't it REINFORCE his heterosexuality?

There is a logical flaw there... surprise, surprise.

Anderson Cooper wrote an autobiography in which he didn't discuss any of his sexual or personal relationships. What did you expect?

Thomas will be on 360 answering questions from viewers tonight. Hopefully he answer what we want to know.

Hailey - I have ALWAYS wondered that. It makes no sense and I've never heard anyone explain it.

CNN fired Roberts for being gay. They can't stand gays. They probably told him not to mention it.

Thomas Roberts was not fired, he is still on CNN Headline News -- at 4 in the morning.

In the follow up interview on 360, Thomas didn't talk about his sexuality but
he did mention his partner name (Patrick) as one the people who supported him.

I think they specifically avoided the issue of Roberts being gay because it would immediately suggest "well what about Anderson Cooper?" Anderson has to walk a very fine line in suggesting that for other healthy straight males, their girlfriends or wives are a normal part of discussion. Just look at all the profiles CNN does on our 'heroic' 'noble' soldiers. 100% of the time, their female lovers or wives are a key part of the story. But in order to perpetuate a certain viewpoint, Anderson has to re-inforce that gay lives are a very 'private' and 'secret' affair. To mention Roberts' actual real male partner would be to broach an untouchable subject. Anderson Cooper believes gay lives are best kept in the shadows.

This is a story about CHURCH SEXUAL ABUSE. This is not "this is your life Thomas Roberts." If so why not pull out every prom date, blind date etc...in Thomas' life to see how this abuse had an impact.

Just because you are curious to see Thomas' partner doesn't mean you get to...people can have a private life too.

Please get a hold of what was talked about here. Child Sexual Abuse and the lack of laws victims have access too.

No GAY Agenda...No straight agenda...No sexuality agenda.

The title of this piece itself has an agenda and isn't that unfortunate. We don't get to have ALL of Thomas' life. I think he is doing the best he can...

No questions asked he has my support.

People ask Ellen if her abuse at the hands of a man made her a lesbian. If this were the case then why didn't the abuse make Roberts straight?

I don't really care that they omitted the info, it would have just made the special sort of awkward and drawn out.

The story was about Thomas' abuse and the affect it had on his life, how such things have a lasting affects. It was relevant for then to talk about it in Michael's (the first accuser) case, but not Thomas'? The story was VERY much about Thomas and his life. It was not a balanced story because Thomas was honest. Notice how in the piece it was only mentioned that he saw the priest for his parent's divorce but look at this article: http://tinyurl.com/34bcxq

"Toohey, 59, a former Roman Catholic priest and Calvert Hall chaplain, was sentenced to 18 months in jail for sexually abusing Roberts after his mother asked the priest to counsel her then-14-year-old son, who was struggling with his parents' divorce and questions about his sexuality."

Not one mention of this in the 360 piece. It's not important to note that this sick man targeted and preyed upon two gay teens?

Michael talked about how he was not able to hold down a relationship and turned to drugs, it would have been good to hear Thomas talk about how he's got support in his life other than his mother and sister - and dog.

In my post above it should have said the story was not balanced because Thomas was not honest.

Actually, if you watch the video clip on CNN of the Roberts interview, there is an unidentified man about his age sitting next to him on the sofa ... was that his partner? Or somebody else? I missed the interview, but again, on the clip, some man is sitting next to him as Roberts discussed his feelings upon hearing Toohey say "guilty" at the trial.

Don't know if my post got through; in the Roberts interview clip on CNN.com, there is a man about his age sitting next to Roberts on the sofa as he tells Anderson Cooper about his feelings upon hearing Toohey say "guilty" in the courtroom ... who was that guy? (I missed the actual interview.) Was that his partner? Or his lawyer? I agree, however, that there should have been more comments re Roberts' life ... Roberts is apparently going back on 360 tonight in a follow-up, according to a post by the 360 producer on the program's blog ...

The video on their site of course isn't loading now -- there was a segment where Roberts was sitting next to the other victim on a couch. I believe that's the only time he's shown with another person.

Thomas does have a long-time partner, and he's a wonderful man. What this group has failed to consider is the dynamic of their relationship, his partner's personal and professional situation, and whether on not an appearance in the piece was even possible.

Thomas is a courageous man who has done a lot for victims of abuse and our community. It's a bit disappointing that no one on this list serv has offered him or his partner the benefit of the doubt in this discussion.

Greentree

The follow-up interview was on yesterday. In the follow up interview on 360, Thomas didn't talk about his sexuality but
he did mention his partner name (Patrick) as one the people who supported him.

He mentioned a man named Patrick. Maybe that was his boyfriend.
I still don't get how he came back to that priests house year after year to be abused. He went up until his high school graduation.

I get not knowing what to do at 14, but at 17 and 18?
It boggles my mind what young people will do because an adult tells them to do.

Not trying to be completely rude, but no way would that happen to any of my young siblings. We were taught early one to tell bullies young or old to back the hell off. I wish his parents opened their damn eyes.

He tried to commit suicide and they still didn't get it.
Stop following authority if it is an unjust authority!

Sarah

Here is a comment by psychologist on 360 who explain why abuse victim continue to go back to their abuser when they know what going to happen.

"To all who watched AC360 tonight,regarding the "Suzannes" of the world who dare to ask why Thomas Roberts kept going back: As a practicing clinical psychologist, I can tell you that most people on the outside looking in cannot begin to grasp the unspeakable power of the pedophile's pathology - the emotional seduction, the preying on a child's vulnerability, the paralysis of fear, turmoil & confusion, the private hell of a trapped child's isolation and shame, who sees no way out and feels there is nowhere to turn. Thomas Roberts was a vulnerable, powerless child in tremendous pain - this pedophile groomed that relationship & fostered an emotional dependency to build an emotional steel trap, well before the sexual abuse began. To suggest that a victimized child could exercise free will to enact a simple solution ("just don't go back") to the excruciatingly painful and deep-seated complexities of an abusive relationship like this one grossly underestimates the nature and extent of the abuser's power. Thomas Roberts was emotionally trapped (as well as physically and sexually) and a victimized child cannot apply a logical, rational adult solution under those heinous circumstances. It is NEVER the child's fault for "going back" & it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the adult offender who perpetrates the abuse on every level. Thomas Roberts had his entire adolescence stolen from him through no fault of his own; his life was not about applying rational solutions to the irrational chaos of abuse, it was about a child trying to survive a living hell. Until the public is educated about the dynamics of abuse of power, there will always be the "suzannes" who question the child's motives, instead of expressing rightful outrage at the adult's role in seducing the child back time and time again. "

Thomas Roberts did say on 360 that he had been "emotionally frozen for 2/3rds of my life" . Since his abuse happened after his parents divorced when he was 14 and he's only 35, we could understand that "2/3rds" to include up to the present day.

Thanks John for the post (Mar 14th, 2007 at 6:33 pm)

It really helped clear a few things up for me.

Peace to Thomas Roberts.

QTC

The man sitting on the couch was Michael, the other abuse victim. He was the first to come out and accuse the priest of the abuse, the entire community ran Michael out of town and supported the priest. Thomas didn't come out and support Michael for almost ten years. Ten years Michael felt isolated and rejected, he talked about how he couldn't hold down a relationship and turned to drugs. I'd love for someone to ask Thomas one of the reasons he didn't step up and help Michael was because he was afraid of being outed.

I think Thomas had plenty of reasons why he didn't come forward and has explained them sufficiently.

I agree, Michael. And I also agree that Thomas and Patrick have every right to privacy in terms of their relationship -- I'm not expecting that the couple be made the focus of the piece, or even that Patrick appear in interviews. But the coverage of the story of an out gay man who was molested by a priest who targeted gay teens cannot be considered thorough if the main subject's sexuality is mysteriously removed from the equation -- particularly considering the rhetoric of the conservative right when it comes to equating sexual abuse with "causing" gayness (an argument which has never made sense -- thanks to those who brought it to light above). This is not criticism of Roberts, but rather of the coverage of his story.

The Catholic Church should not continually be allowed to hide their "sins" and to get away with their actions by their priests. The priests should be subject to the same sentences as any other criminal. Also, there should not be time limits for these crimes. As victims come forth, the crimes should be heard and time should not be a factor. Starting with the bishops and any other informes clergy, let's get serious and and start protecting our kids like God wants us to.

I hear you, Brian. Other people folks on other sites are being harsh on Thomas for it. It's possible he may have said he wouldn't do the interview if it had to include his sexuality. And while I wish it had, given all he has been through and what might be at stake for him, I can't judge him for that (not that you are or anyone else here is).

Roberts did mention a "Patrick" among the litany of people who have helped him through his abuse. However, Roberts preceded everyone's name w/ their relationship to him (e.g., my sister X, my aunt X, etc.), EXCEPT for Patrick. For all we know, Patrick could be the mailman.

Seems to me Roberts still isn't very comfortable being out of the closet.

BTW, I found it very strange he kept on referring to Goles as "boy" in both the original airing and the follow-up. IMHO, Goles has been more of a man than Roberts has.

Ok, some of these comment about Thomas not being a man because he didn't come foward when Goles need him is getting harsh. You need to understand many abuse victims have a hard time coming foward and admitting they were abuse. Many abuse victim don't come forward until they are in their 30s or late as in their 60s. Could these abuse victim also be call coward because they didn't come foward to bring their abuser to justice and stop their abuser from abusing many other victims? Some of these other abuse victim stated they even knew their abuser is still abusing other victim but they still can't being themselves to come forward. These people has been through hell and we
can't really judge them unless we went through the same experience.

In regard to the therapist's comment about "Suzannes," I think it is important in the healing process for vicitims of sexual abuse to carefully look at what part of their experience they can take responsibility for. That is, to what extent was the teen being seductive?

For example, in some developed countries, a 16 or 17 year old is considered past the "age of consent." In this regard, I am even more alarmed by the fact that the abuser was a priest, educator and therapist, than by the age difference.

THERE WERE A NUMBER OF STUDENTS WHO WERE ABUSED AT CALVERT HALL
PREP SCHOOL OVER AN EXTENDED NUMBER OF YEARS...I WAS ABUSED ON ONE
OCCASION BY ONE OF THREE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS AND ONE PRIEST (FATHER
LAWRENCE BRETT), WHO WERE ABUSING STUDENTS DURING THE EARLY 70'S...
I ATTENDED SCHOOL FROM 1971-1975, A FULL TEN YEARS AHEAD OF TOM...
AT LEAST TWO OF THOSE STUDENTS COMMITTED SUICIDE...I BELIEVE THAT
FATHER JEFF TOOK FATHER LAWRENCE BRETT'S PLACE AT CALVERT HALL AS
CHAPLAIN...WHAT BAFFLES ME IS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION AT THE SCHOOL
DID NOT KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON OR, IF THEY DID, HOW COULD THEY (IN
GOOD CONSCIENCE), IGNORE WHAT WAS GOING ON BETWEEN FACULTY AND
STUDENTS.

Some of the harsh comments about Thomas here have really sickened me. I'm all for advancing the rights and visibility of our community. However, I will NOT advance a political position at the expense of the victim of a crime.

Most of the inane comments above display a shocking lack of compassion and insight. Almost every poster here is approaching this story from the perspective of (1) anger directed at the victim instead of the criminal, (2) preference for on victim over another based solely on chronology, (3)what the victim's coming forward can do for them or the community, (4) a voyeuristic need to know details about the private life of the victim beyond the crime itself, (5) how they believe they would have handled a situation in which they did not participate, or (6) how they would like to see the victim portray himself in public.

Has anyone considered the possibility that Thomas and others like him are still emotionally wounded even after coming forward to discuss what happened to them? A declaration of past abuse does not necessarily end suffering. It is actually the beginning of the process of healing. The emotional evidence will always be there in one way or another.

As a former practicing Catholic, I can tell you all that Thomas was not exagerating when he said a priest is portrayed to a child as being the next best thing to God. It's a very different experience than being around a protestant minister. These men are put on such high pedestals by an entire culture, not just by parents. A priest is supposed to be the person you can trust above anyone else on earth with the most private portions of your soul. He's supposed to be a direct conduit to God. Breaking with that is a very difficult thing to do, especially if you are a religious person, as Thomas apparently is.

So why don't some of you try redirecting your anger, accusations and knee-jerk opinions at the actual criminal in this case. By the way, he'll be getting out of jail soon with not required sex offender registration. I saw no outrage here about that.

James C thank you for your post.

Cliff thank you very much for sharing your story.

Peace & Love

QTC

I too was once a student at Calvert Hall. I was molested by Fr. Laurence Brett as was Cliff in 1973. As as a side bar to Thomas's story, the school stated "Fr. Brett had to leave to tend to a sick aunt" as his cover when 5 students were discovered to have been abused.
But, back to the AC 360 piece. Why oh why is it so darn important to the bloggers here as to what Thomas's sexuality is? The story is that he was taken advantage of by a person of enourmous power and influence. The fact that it was a preist makes it that much worse. What in the hell does Thomas's sexuality have to do with any of this? Why is it so important to this story? He was a child, he was abused and he has more guts than those of us who have written here combined in standing up and sharing his story on national televison.
Thank you and God Bless you Thomas for your courage. I am sure you have encouraged many a victim to have found the courage to step forward and begin their own journey toward healing.

Thomas Roberts is a very brave man. Stop picking on him.