Greeley's Dirty Little Secret?
By Matt C. Abbott
When one mentions the name "Fr. Andrew Greeley" among faithful Catholics, one will almost certainly get one of three reactions: a cringe, a laugh, or the proverbial eye-roll. Or, one might get all three.
Greeley is most known for his disgusting "soft" porn novels and dissident rants. Oh, and lest I forget, his seemingly ardent support of pro-abortion Democrats.
Now, some give Greeley credit for his speaking out against the problem (now crisis) of pedophile/actively homosexual priests through the years. And he has. Consider the following column in the April 5 edition of the "Chicago Sun-Times":
"Why did so many American bishops think they could get away with stonewalling and cover-up tactics to protect abusive priests? They thought they could get away with it because they did get away with it for a long time. They had carved out for themselves an immunity not unlike that which canon law envisages in a country where there is a union of church and state."In many, if not most American cities with a large Catholic population, the criminal justice system ignored abusing priests; it was the church's problem. When a case did come to its attention, it almost never found a reason to prosecute. In some places it still doesn't.
"Usually, the parents of the victim would go to the church. At first they would be fended off. The priest absolutely denied the charge. He was a good priest. Their son had a vivid imagination. If this didn't work, a phalanx of higher-up priests descended on the family, accompanied by the church's expensive lawyers (who had the deep pockets of the church behind them). They offered the family a deal. They would give the family a certain amount of money (not very much) for medical costs and psychological counseling (based on how high the lawyers figured they had to go to keep the family quiet).
"They would send the priest to a psychiatric screening and then off to an institution. No one wanted a public lawsuit. That cost everyone a lot of money. If the parents would sign off on the deal, everything would be fine. Somehow the parents, whom one high-priced lawyer defined as ''the enemy,'' had become the bad guys. If they hired lawyers of their own and threatened suit, the church's lawyers would beat them into the ground by running up big legal bills. They would threaten countersuits.
"The media paid no attention. Families were torn apart, marriages were destroyed. The parents finally caved in and settled. Another victory for the church.
"The priest would be sent off somewhere, return in a few months and be approved for reassignment by the church's psychiatrists (although they might not have quite said that exactly). Then he would show up at a new parish without the pastor being warned of his past. Fellow priests would say, 'he really denies it strongly' and 'the cops and the shrinks cleared him.' That was that.
"It worked. It worked for a long time. Only when a few brave journalists began to report the stories did the whole game fall apart. Yet many dioceses continued to play it. They blamed all their trouble on the media.
"Thus in his pastoral letter, Cardinal Edward Egan does not admit that his lawyers beat up on families in Bridgeport, Conn., with the absurd argument that priests really didn't work for the church. Another hierarch, now apologizing profusely, does not admit that his lawyers are still pushing a countersuit against the victim's parents. They allege that the parents are responsible for the abuse because they didn't raise their son to be cautious of males who were too friendly.
"So confident were they that the system was still working that Cardinal Bernard Law did not even bother to destroy the documents on the case involving former priest John Geoghan (which he could legally have done before litigation began and easily, if illegally, after it had begun). It was unthinkable that the Boston Globe would ever spread his private files over its front pages.
"Not having the gift of reading hearts, I cannot say how sincere the various actors were in his familiar charade. I admit, however, that it would have taken a monumental ability at self-deception to carry it off in good faith.
"So are their abject apologies to be taken seriously? In most cases I would say that they seem phony to me, though they may be able to deceive themselves about their own sincerity, whatever of that quality might remain.
"I would begin to believe them if they took seriously their remaining moral responsibility to the families whom they crushed. I won't hold my breath until that happens.
"As for the recent implication of Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos that it is an American problem caused by our 'pan-sexualism' and his excuse that the pope is more worried about world peace than American victims of clerical abuse, he may be sincere too. Or rather, he may have convinced himself that he is sincere. He may be the next pope. If he is, folks, Katie, bar the door!"
Hmm. What courage. What straightforwardness. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Now, take a look at the following passage from Greeley's 1999 non-fiction book, "Furthermore! Memories of a Parish Priest" (p. 80):
"...But even in Chicago, the ring of predators about whom I wrote in the paperback edition of 'Confessions remains untouched. There is no evidence against them because no one has complained about them and none of their fellow Priests have denounced them. Those who have been removed are for the most part lone offenders who lacked the skill to cover their tracks. The ring is much more clever. Perhaps they always will be. But should they slip, should they get caught, the previous scandals will seem trivial...A footnote says:
"They are a dangerous group. There is reason to believe that they are responsible for at least one murder, and may perhaps have been involved in the murder of the murderer. Am I afraid of them? Not particularly. They know that I have in safekeeping information which would implicate them. I am more of a threat to them dead than alive."Now, if Greeley is telling the truth, and he ostensibly is so interested in justice, why on earth hasn't he given this information he has in "safekeeping" to the authorities?
This is a question that even Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago, seemingly can't answer. When Yours truly asked the Cardinal last year about Greeley's aforementioned allegation, the Cardinal responded that he did ask Greeley twice about it, and that all Greeley told him was to talk to two priests - the names of which Greeley apparently gave to him. (The Cardinal didn't say who they were, and, for obvious reasons, I didn't ask.) But no evidence was provided.
So, what gives? Does Fr. Andrew Greeley have a "dirty little secret"? I guess only time will tell.
