Posted on 03/06/2003 8:29:10 AM PST by Polycarp
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.
A few obvious points:
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.
I stand by what I have written in From Scandal to Hope.
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.”
There are too few of these kind of men in the Church.
Law is doing penance, while the Adamecs and Murphys and Banks hang on to power like drunks hanging on to the rim of a toilet.
This sexual abuse scandal is far from over. Like kudzu, it will continue to reach out and claim clerical perpetrators for years to come.
Dang! We shoulda asked your opinion in the beginning! You nailed the problem! Thanks!
Unfortunately, this thread is about a priest being smeared by a journalist and has nothing to do with anything else.
Not goofballs, unfortunately. They are Call To Action, We Are Church, Corpus and Catholics for a Free Choice all rolled into one. And they have some big names behind them. And they have a lot of friends in the press. And they are all upper-class white people with a a lot of money.
And you are right, they are not Catholic unless the Church now teaches heresy. BTW, a lot of the bishops do recognize them and allow them to meet on parish grounds.
But those here on FR who continue to make apologies for such satanic doings are not doing anyone any favors.
What to believe? The numbers are probably different depending on what part of the country you are in. The other day Fr. Greeley weighed in on the number of abusing priests (inc. those abusing children as well as those abusing teenagers) and his estimates were on the low side as well.
It probably doesn't matter about the numbers so long as they are weeded out one way or the other. This is a case of NOT letting the tares grow along with the wheat.
Ahh, my dear young thing, this is your first lesson in "the homosexual network," which also happens to be the title of a VERY revealing book written about 20(!!!!!) years ago by Fr. Enrique Rueda. The book sort of slid into oblivion, but named lots of names.
To your question: simple answer: Fr. Groeschel simply calls a spade a spade---homosexual attacks on children.
The Bishops who are questionable are members of, or have significant ties to, the "network."
They are automatically exempt from questioning.
It is yet to be determined which ballgame the victims would like Dolan to play.
For once we agree.
And your qualifier 'at the very least' is portentious. Frankly, I think that the majority of the Bishops involved were criminally negligent.
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.