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

http://www.franciscanfriars.com/ ^ | Fr. Benedict J. Groeschel CFR, Ed. D.

[Desdemona]

But Groeschel worked with priests who abused young people. Because of doctor-patient privilege, we will likely never know just how much bishops relied on his recommendations.

Hmmmm...I suspect it's more of the seal of the confessional variety, but was he actually involved in the cover-up? Did he actually recommend that abusers be returned to active ministry with children?

Until those two questions can be answered one way or the other, there's no story here.

None of this is going to go public until all parties have passed away.

[nickcarraway]

Don't you believe he should have revealed that he belonged to that organization? Doesn't that organization have an agenda? Would anyone accept an article written on the issue by member of church hierarchy, while not revealing that he was?

[Desdemona]

The Church is a target in regards to sexual abuse because the bishops' first concern was themselves, and not the victims.

Yes, except for one little thing. Thus far, the only cardinal to resign or even give a hint of resigning is the only one in a major problem diocese who also happened not to be liberal and did not lean toward modernism and dissent. Law has a conscience. It seems that the others don't.

That being said, this is still bad journalism.

[nickcarraway]

There are Catholics on this forum who, like Ratzinger and Groeschel, do everything they can to blame outside forces (the media, permissive society, Vatican II) for the actions of very sinful men. That's their "agenda."

If you care about what's true than you'll retract this statement. In the above article Fr. Groeschel does not blame those forces for the actions of the sinful men. He blames them for distorting the facts and using them against the Church. There is a big difference. If you're honest, you'll correct the statement.

[nickcarraway]

What's important is what is true.

If you care about what's true, don't the distortions in this article? Do you really want to find out what really happened with Fr. Groeschel, because you seem like you just want to blame him and not look into it. I guess he's guilty by accusation. On other topics, you would be suspicious of the media, but you can't question anything about Catholics?

Basically do you believe there is any difference etween anti-Catholic and anti-molestation?

[nickcarraway]

The entire Church?

[sinkspur]

He blames them for distorting the facts and using them against the Church.

The media has "distorted" nothing. They report the facts. If these facts are used against the Church, then it's the Church's fault.

If bishops hadn't covered all this nonsense up in 1984 when the scandal was gaining critical mass, we wouldn't be where we are today.

Stop blaming the media when the Church gave them the ammunition.

[sinkspur]

Basically do you believe there is any difference etween anti-Catholic and anti-molestation?

I don't understand the question.

[sinkspur]

Don't you believe he should have revealed that he belonged to that organization?

What organizations do you belong to so I can know your agenda.

[Desdemona]

The media has "distorted" nothing. They report the facts.

Oh, please. Get real. When writing copy for any news medium the primary concern is the hook followed by space - be it time or actual column inches. Words are cut (translation: details) based on the available space. There are details left out every day. Journalism is not term paper writing where there is a topic sentence and then supporting sentences woith development. Stories are written with space editing in mind. A whole lot of detail which gives a much better picture of the whole situation was left out of the original story.

Just remember: mundane details don't sell papers. Splashy headlines do. Changing minds is next to impossible once they are set. The sensationalistic headlines did their job. The Church and the hierarchy are now guilty until proven innocent.

[nickcarraway]

It's a very simple question. Do you believe there is any difference etween anti-Catholic and anti-molestation?

[nickcarraway]

The media has "distorted" nothing.

That about sums it up. You believe the media has never made a mistake. They are infallible to you. So much for your talk about caring for what is true.

[american colleen]

You aren't sticking to the main thrust of this article and the one it refutes. You are dragging the whole mess into this dust-up between Fr. G. and Mr. E. in order to deflect attention from your original statements in the two other threads you posted regarding Fr. Groeschel.

I think Fr. G. has addressed and answered each "charge" leveled against him by the DMN/BEdgerton, has he not?

What is your problem?

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I am very glad Fr. Groeschel spoke out. He absolutely had to, however, this issue has become quite the political hot potato. It's not over.

Now get back on the wagon;-)

[sinkspur]

I think Fr. G. has addressed and answered each "charge" leveled against him by the DMN/BEdgerton, has he not?

No. Did he tell Mark Serrano to leave Fr. Hanley alone? Did he scold him for coming forward with accusations of abuse?

Nothing about that here.

The bigger picture is how much did Groeschel know and how many of these abusers was he involved with?

That will come out in a courtroom.

[sinkspur]

You believe the media has never made a mistake.

A ridiculous overstatement.

The media is largely relaying what it gets from depositions and the previously-sealed folders on these abusive priests.

The media makes lots of mistakes. But you don't like all this messy stuff about the Church becoming public, do you? It's embarrassing, and it should be. But not to you.

Those who should be embarrassed are the bishops and those who helped them cover-up (psychologists, lawyers, doctors, and some family members whose acceptance of payoffs facilitated further abuse. And, of course, the abusive priests themselves).

But, let's get it all out. Sunlight is a great disinfectant.

[american colleen]

No. Did he tell Mark Serrano to leave Fr. Hanley alone? Did he scold him for coming forward with accusations of abuse?

Nothing about that here.

I had nothing to do with the reappointment of 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 Serano family, who apparently acquiesced to his reassignment, 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 (OSV 2002).

The bigger picture is how much did Groeschel know and how many of these abusers was he involved with?

Are you just impugning Fr. G. on your own information or does this have anything to do with the DMN article you posted? You could ask this same exact question of many? most? priests in almost any of the affected dioceses. Stick to the facts as Fr. G. has done. He cannot answer your personal charges against him unless you maybe post your own vanity thread here and ping him or write to him with your question.

That will come out in a courtroom.

Let it all hang out! The sooner the better. I don't believe there is one Catholic out there who disagrees with that.

[sinkspur]

The quotation from Fr. Groeschel's letter does not refute Serrano's contention that Groeschel questioned why Serrano was hurting Hanley further by bringing charges forward because Hanley was "a sick man." If Serrano is right, Groeschel was more concerned about the priest than about him.

[american colleen]

The quotation from Fr. Groeschel's letter does not refute Serrano's contention that Groeschel questioned why Serrano was hurting Hanley further by bringing charges forward because Hanley was "a sick man." If Serrano is right, Groeschel was more concerned about the priest than about him.

"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."