Fr. Benedict Groeschel: Response to Brooks Egerton’s March 2, 2003 Article n Dallas Morning News

Response to Brooks Egerton’s Article of March 2, 2003 in the Dallas Morning News

The headline of this article claiming that I played down the abuse crisis is an absolute untruth. Anyone reading my books or listening to my talks on this subject knows that this is utterly untrue, that it is a smear.

I must respond carefully to the rest of Egerton’s article because of professional confidentiality. I cannot even acknowledge that I spoke to certain people because of their right to privacy.

Egerton says that according to me the sexual abuse scandal is “largely the stuff of fiction”. Any honest person reading my book From Scandal to Hope (Our Sunday Visitor Press 2002) will see that this is a complete distortion, an almost incredible denial of what my book is about. I do stand by my statement that the secular media have taken the scandal out of proportion, ignored many charges of abuse of minors and committed by others in professional roles, created the impression that this is only a problem of Catholic clergy. Writers as varied as George Weigel, Philip Jenkins, Andrew Greeley, Richard Neauhaus and Peter Steinfels have all been critical of the media coverage of these scandals.

I agree with the assessment of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Dean of the College of Cardinals on this issue:

“In the United States, there is constant news on this topic, but less than 1% of priests are guilty of acts of this type. The constant presence of these news items does not correspond to the objectivity of the information nor to the statistical objectivity of the facts. Therefore, one comes to the conclusion that it is intentional, manipulated and that there is a desire to discredit the Church. It is a logical and well-founded conclusion.” Cardinal Ratzinger characterizes the media coverage as a planned campaign.

A number of factual distortions should be indicated. Egerton mentions that 85 priests have returned to the active ministry through Trinity Retreat, implying that some of these priests had difficulties with minors. These were priests on leaves of absence, not priests who had been accused of any misbehavior at all.

I have not been the director of Trinity Retreat for ten years. This retreat for priests has never has been referred to before as a mansion. In fact, I don’t even live in the building, I have lived for years in the garage.

I did not decline to be interviewed. I never spoke to Mr. Egerton because I was not at home when he called. After this article I am grateful to God I did not talk to him.

Fr. Richard Brown never assisted in the management of Trinity Retreat. He did typing and recorded reservations for priests coming on retreat. He lived a most prayerful and ascetical life while here and he had done so for many years before as many people have said. He did no pastoral work in the New York Archdiocese, nor did anyone ever request permission for him to do so.

I cannot comment on the allegations of the representative of the Paterson Diocese, except to say that my role is significantly misrepresented. I have requested a formal clarification.

I can say Morgan Kuhl never received any treatment from me and was in fact directly enrolled in a formal treatment program elsewhere. We provided a supervised residence, which the court agreed to continue.

As to the issue of my not having a license: a Doctor of Psychology does not need a license unless he is receiving third part payments for instance from an insurance company or an agency. I never intended to receive any pay doing psychological counseling or spiritual direction, so I never bothered about a license. In fact I have never been paid a cent for my services that Mr. Egerton refers to as “business”. It is not uncommon for professors of psychology not to obtain licenses to practice, because clinical practice is not our principal vocation.

Mr. Egerton’s article is a prime example of the hostility, distortion and planned attack on the Catholic Church in the United States by certain segments of the media.

I also wish to acknowledge the support and encouragement of countless numbers of people whom I meet in my preaching travels and who only recognize me as a Catholic priest and religious. People when they warmly greet me they are at least four times more friendly than they were two years ago. The American people have a sense of fair play and many of them, including many clergymen of other denominations have indicated to me that they believe Catholic priests are being victimized by an abuse of the power of the media.

Of course I will keep Mr. Egerton in my prayers for himself and his personal intentions. This is required by the gospel. He’s also done me a favor proving the adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity. In the Sermon On The Mount, (Matthew 5:11) Jesus reassures us when He says, “Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad for your reward is very great in heaven.”

On Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at St. Raymond Cathedra in Joliet, IL, at 2:30 p.m. CST, Bishop Daniel E. Ryan, former Bishop of Springfield, IL, was co-consecrator at the episcopal ordination of Auxiliary Bishop James E. Fitzgerald of Joliet. Cardinal Francis George presided.

Roman Catholic Faithful was there to protest and take pictures. Photos and articles on this event appeared in their Fall/Winter 2002 issue of Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam, including the following editorial comment:

"On the first few pages of this newsletter, you are going to see photographs of bishops who attended an episcopal ordination in Joliet on March 19, 2002. In what can only be described as the ultimate insult, Bishop Ryan was co-consecrator. Ryan was ceremoniously paraded around for all to see as a token of moral leadership. Not only was he honored as a moral leader, but as someone who was worthy to consecrate a fellow bishop, who will himself influence thousands of lives. Ryan is a man who has sodomized 15- and 16-year-old boys and Catholic priests alike, who has lied, who has used his position of authority to corrupt others to satisfy his own lust and his own desires."

In a way, what is most horrifying is the routine way Ryan has been re-absorbed by his fellow bishops and the Cardinal without any suggestion of either repugnance on their part or public remorse on his. It was business as usual in Illinois--just as it has been for decades.

Bishop Ryan Suspends Ministry Pending Investigation
From the September 1, 2002 Catholic Times, Springfield, IL

Although he has denied the allegation, retired Bishop Daniel L. Ryan has agreed to suspend all public ministry pending an investigation of a claim of sexual abuse of a minor.

In mid-June, attorneys for the diocese received information concerning a statement by Springfield resident Frank Sigretto containing an allegation of sexual misconduct by Bishop Ryan. The incident was said to have occurred in the mid-1980s when Sigretto would have been under the age of 18.

Since the allegation involved sexual abuse of a minor, attorneys for the diocese immediately notified the Sangamon County State's Attorney.

The information was brought to the attention of the diocese by Springfield attorney Frederick Nessler. On July 9, Nessler filed the statement as part of supporting documents in McCormick v. Alvin Campbell et al, an ongoing suit against the diocese, Bishop Ryan and the late Bishop Joseph McNicholas. The suit is related to the Alvin Campbell case of the mid-1980s. In 1985, Campbell, then a priest of the diocese, was convicted in Christian County of sexual abuse of minors, fined and sentenced to 15 years in prison. He was removed from all priestly ministry and subsequently laicized.

Under church law, neither the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, crafted at the bishops' meeting in Dallas last June, nor the diocesan Pastoral Policy on Sexual Abuse of Minors by Church Personnel applies to bishops. Bishop Ryan, however, has agreed to cooperate fully in the investigation.

Under the diocesan policy, an allegation would normally be referred to Diocesan Review Board, a panel of mostly lay people appointed by the bishop to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct with minors. Since some members of the committee were appointed during the episcopacy of Bishop Ryan, Bishop Lucas has asked the review board of another diocese to handle the investigation, thus avoiding the possibility of a conflict of interest among members of the local review board. Any determination about Bishop Ryan's status would ultimately be made by the Holy See

Bishop George Lucas has forwarded all information to the Washington, D.C., office of the papal nuncio, Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo.

No deadline has been set for a conclusion to the investigation, but Bishop Lucas has said he hopes for a timely resolution.

Here's the real dope, which I've been following for a long time now. (I joined Roman Catholic Faithful some while back and regularly get their newsletters.) Bishop Ryan had been picking up young male prostitutes for years and had been sexually harrassing a young priest and actually sleeping with him. (That has been since fully documented.) In addition he staffed the Springfied diocese with actively gay priests who screened and scotched all complaints by victims of sexual abuse. As if this weren't enough, he was responsible for introducing a sexually explicit, gay-friendly, sex education curriculum into parochial elementary schools, complete with the run-down on sado-masochism, anal and oral sex, and how to fit condoms on bananas. Parents protested and appealed to Rome. They got no response. Roman Catholic Faithful got involved and hand-carried dossiers of information to Rome. No response. So it got some lawyers and went public.

Many of the male prostitutes who had slept with Ryan were under age. One of them admitted to the media he had been picked up by Ryan on many occasions, describing Ryan's most intimate secrets and habits, describing his bedroom, describing his body. Ryan resigned within days. It took the media, not Rome, to get rid of this pervert who was actively corrupting Catholic parochial school children.

Give me a break. If anything angers me more than what churchmen like this have been allowed to do, it is the response from Catholic lay people who refuse to accept the horrifying truth that their religious leaders--including high Vatican officials--are corrupt. Rome is complicit--and so are the bishops who knew about Ryan and not only tolerated his shenanigans but promoted him to the episcopacy in the first place knowing what he was. This is corruption, plain and simple.

Here are two more letters.
Tuesday, March 11, 2003

Comments were |misunderstood

I write to clarify certain charges against me in the March 4 Herald News article, "Rodimer: Psychologist gave me bad advice," by Maya Kremen. I have asked the diocese to publish a clarification as well and they have agreed. I am not critical of the writer who used the information she had.

I had nothing to do with the reappointment of the Rev. James Hanley to another parish after he was removed from Mendham as a result of serious accusations of abuse of minors. In fact, I had never heard of the case. I became involved when Hanley came on retreat after he was removed a second time from a new assignment because his picture appeared in the diocesan paper with a group of altar boys.

I totally agreed with the Serrano family that this was a serious violation of a provision that had been given to them; namely, that Hanley not work with minors. No additional charges of misconduct were made as far as I know from Hanley's second assignment. I strongly suggested that he not be assigned to any parish duties and that he be supervised closely. Hanley, at this time, was an active AA member and was very remorseful.

I was never involved with such a case before, and I was startled by the degree of anger and hurt Hanley's sinful behavior had generated. Since that time, I have worked with a number of victims, and I accept their anger as appropriate and say so in my book, "From Scandal to Hope."

The other two cases mentioned in the article pertain to consenting adults, or at least that was the information I was given originally. There was no involvement with minors that I knew about.

Buddy Cotton's criticism of me is unfounded, but certainly understandable. If I said what he believes I said he would be totally justified in his criticism.

What I said was that as a result of working on the case of the late Archbishop Marino, I had come to realize that about 98 percent of what the media says about people involved in scandals is untrue or distorted. I mentioned that I did not believe everything said about a scandal involving a former president.

I suspect that Cotton never read my book. Any honest person reading the book will see that I am horrified by the abuse of minors or anyone else propositioned by a priest.

My book is a very serious and powerful call for the reform of the Catholic Church and of our society that is so lacking in morality and respect for the individual.

I am at a great disadvantage in defending myself because of the right of confidentiality of the people involved.

I have worked as a therapist and spiritual director with clergy for 30 years after obtaining a doctorate in counseling psychology at Columbia University.

I have never charged a fee and have never asked for or received payment. I have seen clergy of various different denominations and faiths.

Like any therapist I have made mistakes. People forget that therapists and spiritual directors are neither prosecutors nor defense attorneys. Since I cannot defend myself, I think that any honest person will admit that what has been said against me is unfair and based on misinformation. Being a strong advocate of church reform does not make you popular - but Jesus did not suggest that we would be popular if we try to follow Him.

Fr. Benedict J. Groeschel, |Larchmont, N.Y.

Diocese not |affixing blame

By way of clarification, I comment on Maya Kremen's March 4 Herald News article, "Rodimer: Psychologist gave me bad advice". I gave an interview to the Dallas Morning News answering questions about the Rev. Benedict Groeschel. Kemen's article reflects that more comprehensive story.

The headline is certainly misleading. It implies blame. I never used the word "blame" in my conversations with the Dallas Morning News. We relied heavily on the advice of the Rev. Benedict Groeschel. It was also the advice of other health care professionals at the time.

In the 1980s many professionals believed, with false optimism, that those pedophiles could be cured. To our horror and and to the detriment of many victims as well, we now know this is not true. Bishop Rodimer also is on record admitting his own responsibility for diocesan decisions.

Kremen did not include Groeschel's own quotation in the Dallas Morning News story: "I've been involved in psychology for four decades and we in the profession were naïve enough to believe that these offenders could almost always be cured... "

He goes on to say that therapists "were sometimes tragically wrong about a particular case." This quote comes from Father Groeschel's book "From Scandal to Hope."

The diocesan focus in this issue is not to cast blame on others, but to reach out to victims, to listen, to assist and to work toward reconciliation.

Marianna Thompson, director |of communications, Roman Catholic Diocese of Paterson

Clarifying why Hanley left Mendham

In reading the Rev. Benedict Groeschel's March 10 letter to the editor, I find a significant error that I must correct. Father Groeschel is quite incorrect about the reason why the Rev. James Hanley left his post as pastor of St. Joseph's in Mendham in 1982. The Rev. Hanley left St. Joseph's to go on sabbatical. Soon after it was determined that he needed treatment for alcohol abuse. He was sent to Guest House in Minnesota for residential treatment.

Upon return from a sabbatical or treatment for an illness, it is common practice for a priest to receive a new assignment. So it was that Hanley was assigned to Immaculate Heart of Mary Parish in Wayne as a parochial vicar. There were no accusations of sexual abuse against Hanley in 1982 when he left Mendham.

The diocese did not transfer him to another parish after sexual abuse allegations were made. The first information received about sexual abuse came from Mark Serrano and his family when they came forward in late 1985.

It was at that point that the Groeschel became involved in counseling Hanley and advising Bishop Rodimer. It was at that time that Groeschel made an overture and helped to arrange the hospital chaplain position for Hanley in the diocese of Albany.

Marianna Thompson, director |of communications, Roman Catholic Diocese of Paterson

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.