Priest (Fr. Benedict Groeschel) plays down abuse crisis; helps clergy keep jobs

Dallas Morning News | 3/2/2003 | Brooks Egerton

[sinkspur]

If the state knows Fr. G has no license (per Mr.Egerton) and he is practicing as something he is not, why hasn't he been arrested?

No. It's not "per Mr. Egerton." It's per Ms. Kappa, the prosecutor.

Typically, people are not arrested for misdemeanors. However, if a victim of Fr. Kruhl sues his diocese, I suspect Fr. Groeschel will be asked about his credentials.

the author doesn't say the interview requests came from him or the newspaper he writes for. Kind of a weird omission.

I'm not sure I see the significance of this. Egerton is writing the story; I'd bet a considerable sum of money that it was he who made the request.

And do we know what the victim was doing to the priest?

Not anything near as horrible as what the priest was doing to the victim.

It was understood that the abusers could be treated and cured until very recently.

Wait a minute. Is this about pedophilia or homosexuality? I thought these guys were homosexuals preying on young men. At least, that's what I read in Michael Rose, and here on Free Republic. It is pedophilia that cannot be cured. Homosexuals, on the other hand, can be changed, or so I read, or encouraged to remain chaste.

Was Groeschel treating pedophilia or homosexuality?

[american colleen]

Did Groeschel think he had cured these men of their homosexual tendencies?

You should ask Ms. Thompson when you call her (I hope you do) tomorrow. Who knows? I always thought most psychology was bunk regardless of who was practicing it. Accepted psychology always seems to be revamped each decade. But then again, I'm not that great practicing emotional and spiritual charity most of the time.

[sinkspur]

He would come out of it with more integrity if he just admitted to making some bad mistakes in these instances, or challenge the reporters to give some proof if they are lying.

Prosecutors are casting wide nets to snare anybody who had anything to do with advising bishops to return predators to situations in which they could continue to prey. You can bet that if this pitiful little DMN writer has this stuff, plaintiffs lawyers like Roderick MacLeish have it too.

Fr. Groeschel will likely get the chance to confirm or refute these accusations, whether he wants to or not.

[american colleen]

Depends on what they were curing, I guess. However, if it was homosexual abuse, I would presume that it could be cured (or so they may have thought) by spiritual means -- reinforcing the gift of celibacy. And wasn't pedophelia thought to be curable as well?

Seems like you are asking more than was posed in the article.

[Tantumergo]

"Prosecutors are casting wide nets to snare anybody who had anything to do with advising bishops to return predators to situations in which they could continue to prey."

If that's the case I hope they get round to all those psyches who have returned abuser cops, teachers, social workers etc. into situations where they could re-offend as well. That would be a test of even-handedness in all of this!

However, I do think the hand of God is in all of this as well - and it is probably His intention that the Church be judged more severely than any other body.

Or maybe God just hates psychologists? ;)

[american colleen]

Nice balanced post - thanks!

Outta here, familial duty calls.

[sinkspur]

Seems like you are asking more than was posed in the article.

The article poses that Groeschel advised bishops that certain men ought to be returned to the priesthood after having been accused of sexual abuse.

Why did he give them clearance, if they later abused again? It makes a difference whether this was pedophilia or homosexuality.

[B Knotts]

I suppose you think it is a coincidence that of all the psychologists and advisors who have screwed up on this stuff, this author chooses to single out Fr. Groeschel?

This is pretty transparent, and pathetic advocacy journalism, with a lot of paraphrasing.

I'm not saying that Fr. Groeschel is beyond criticism; I'm just saying that this is the only article thus far making these accusations (I've searched), and we are oddly not told how many cases he dealt with in which he was successful in preventing future abuse.

Horrible things were done in the past, and every effort to heal those who were abused must be made. That said, we have a pretty good policy on this stuff now, with a lay review board. The primary remaining issue is convincing the bishops to embrace the Church's teachings on sexual morality. This article seems to be an effort to prevent that, by calling into question the competency of those advocating same, and smearing conservatives with the alleged mistakes of one priest. It seems disingenous to me to pretend that the general moral atmosphere embraced by much of the Church in the 60s and 70s wasn't a major part of the cause of the ambivilent attitude some took towards these crimes.

I guess we'll see that Fr. Groeschel has to say, as he will probably respond to this at some point, I'm sure.

[sinkspur]

This article seems to be an effort to prevent that, by calling into question the competency of those advocating same, and smearing conservatives with the alleged mistakes of one priest.

You overrate the power of Brooks Egerton. He's a writer for a newspaper, for heaven's sake.

Let's not get paranoid here. If the Church's effort to spread the truth is going to be stymied by printing a factual article about one priest, then we're in real trouble.

[sinkspur]

Do you honestly think the chairman of the Texas chapter of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists would not have an agenda directly opposed to staunch defenders of authentic Church teaching?!

I don't know, and it doesn't matter.

Is his article factual or not?

Ad hominems are supposed to be beneath Freepers, but apparently that fallacious method of argumentation is perfectly acceptable when it's used in favor of somebody we like.

Maybe you can answer why Groeschel approved putting men back into active ministry whom he knew to be active homosexuals, or pedophiles.

[RobbyS]

Is his article factual or not? You are confusing facts and evidence. The gentleman has a case. Hitler had a case.

[B Knotts]

I don't know, and it doesn't matter.

Is his article factual or not?

So, you would accept as factual an article about President Bush's economic policy written by Bob Mulholland or Molly Ivins?

Think real hard now...it's the same thing.

[Desdemona]

This article is a hit piece.

I think you're right, but at the same time there are a lot of facts here. They're just not tied together well. The author and the editor need to go back to writing class. There's too many points all jumbled up.

I do think, though, that in the beginning, to be charitable, no one really knew what this sickness involved and that psychology and psychiatrists really did not have a cure. The church has learned that the hard way and the teachings on forgiveness were exploited along the way.

[Siobhan]

The way this article is written is atrocious. It had a goal of smearing Father Groeschel any way possible. You can string together bits and pieces of quotes and facts and make a newspaper column say or imply anything you want. And this is but one of several foul efforts of this writer on the subject of Father Groeschel.

[american colleen]

Maybe you can answer why Groeschel approved putting men back into active ministry whom he knew to be active homosexuals, or pedophiles.

Now this is over the top! Where and when have you read that Fr. G put men back into the ministry when he knew they were ACTIVE homosexuals or pedophiles???

[Siobhan]

The real point is that a homosexual journalist has chosen to target Father Benedict Groeschel, C.F.R. out of all of the psychologists, counselors, and psychiatrists involved -- with intent to hang him by characterizing him as responsible for several notorious and horrific cases. Father Groeschel was chosen deliberately, and these attack pieces by this homosexual journalist are meant to do nothing more than assassinate Fr. Groeschel's character.

[Siobhan]

So, you would accept as factual an article about President Bush's economic policy written by Bob Mulholland or Molly Ivins?

Excellent point.

[Antoninus]

Sorry, but I'm not buying it. I've had issues with Fr. Groeschel before, but I to call him 'complicit' with the sex abuse scandal is a stretch. Clearly, he's had one-on-one contact with many abusive priests and their victims in his role of psychologist, but to translate that into him being complicity? I'm content to wait to hear his side.

Also, isn't it ironic how easily you, sinkspur, buy into this article, while at the same time you were quick and vicious to condemn Michael Rose's very similar accounts in Goodbye, Good Men, EVEN BEFORE YOU READ IT!?