Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Priest (Fr. Benedict Groeschel) plays down abuse crisis; helps clergy keep jobs
Dallas Morning News | 3/2/2003 | Brooks Egerton

Posted on 03/02/2003 8:54:18 AM PST by sinkspur

Prominent friar's counseling criticized by NJ diocese, victims

In the world according to Father Benedict Groeschel, the Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandal is largely the stuff of fiction. Reporters "doing the work of Satan" are driven to lie, the New York priest says, because they hate the church's moral teachings.

These are not the opinions of a marginal figure. Indeed, Father Groeschel is one of the most prominent priests in America, reaching millions with his books, tapes, parish lectures and regular appearances on the Eternal Word Television Network.

His stature is high among many church leaders, too – he has heard the confessions of a cardinal, consulted with the Vatican on a case for sainthood, been a friend to Mother Teresa.

The preface to his media-blaming 2002 book From Scandal to Hope was written by Milwaukee Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who praised Father Groeschel for putting the abuse scandal in context.

For all his commentary on the crisis, Father Groeschel has revealed few details about his role as a player in it: He has been a key figure for 30 years in the loose-knit nationwide network of therapists who have helped troubled priests keep working.

The Franciscan friar's base is a mansion on Long Island Sound, where he runs the Archdiocese of New York's spiritual development office and Trinity Retreat Center for clergy. There, according to his own written account, he has counseled hundreds of his brethren and "happily, 85 priests have returned to the active ministry."

Father Groeschel, who declined interview requests, has not said publicly how many of his clients were accused of abuse. Archdiocesan spokesman Joseph Zwilling would not comment on Father Groeschel.

Dallas Bishop Charles Grahmann has allowed one of his priests, removed from parish work after the diocese concluded he had abused a girl, to help manage the retreat center in recent years. That priest, the Rev. Richard T. Brown, moved to a hermitage a few months ago and "is not contactable," said Father Groeschel's secretary, June Pulitano. Neither she nor Bishop Grahmann's spokesman, Bronson Havard, would identify the hermitage.

Mr. Zwilling said Father Brown "never did any pastoral work" in the archdiocese and did not have its permission to serve as a priest there.

Leaders of the neighboring Diocese of Paterson, N.J., one of several that sent business to Father Groeschel, blamed three "unfortunate" reassignments on his advice. Two of those priests were subsequently accused of misconduct in their new jobs.

"We relied on his recommendations," said Marianna Thompson, spokeswoman for Paterson Bishop Frank Rodimer. Father Groeschel used words such as "transformation," she said, and helped arrange transfers between dioceses.

Ms. Thompson said Father Groeschel had much to recommend him – he had taught pastoral psychology at Catholic institutions and had a doctorate in psychology from Columbia University's Teachers College. He had close ties to the late New York Cardinal John O'Connor, who endorsed the friar's secession from a Franciscan order in the 1980s and formation of a new group that has won renown for service to the poor. The cardinal earlier had Father Groeschel prepare the sainthood case for the previous leader of New York Catholics, Cardinal Terence Cooke, for whom the priest had served as confessor.

In From Scandal to Hope, completed shortly before the nation's bishops met in Dallas last summer, Father Groeschel acknowledged that some priests had abused boys. He described the problem as "active homosexuality with minors," stressing that most victims were teenagers and never mentioning girls.

"Many of the cases now in the papers are about clergy who, perhaps under the influence of alcohol two or three decades ago, engaged in improper actions, but not sexual acts," he wrote. "They went into treatment and have behaved well over the years."

Father Groeschel also said that church leaders sometimes had relied, to their detriment, on the advice of behavioral experts.

"I've been involved in psychology for four decades, and we in the profession were naïve enough to think that these offenders could almost always be cured," he wrote. Therapists "often were correct in their assessments," but "were sometimes tragically wrong about a particular case."

Father Groeschel said nothing in his book about his own success rate in treating priests.

He saved his harshest words for the news media's coverage of the abuse issue, which he called a "blitz of lies." Like Adolf Hitler, he wrote, news organizations are "spreading lies in order to destroy" the Catholic Church.

"When a scandal occurs," the priest wrote, "about two percent of what is said in the media is true." Last month, he made similar statements to a standing-room-only crowd at a suburban Boston church.

Such statements have infuriated victims. "It just burns me to no end," said Buddy Cotton, who has accused the Rev. James Hanley of abusing him in the Paterson Diocese and recently called Bishop Rodimer to complain about Father Groeschel.

The bishop, Mr. Cotton said, agreed that Father Groeschel "had failed a lot of victims."

Ms. Thompson, the bishop's spokeswoman, said Father Groeschel's critique of the media was misguided. "Bishop Rodimer has told the media, 'Thank you for opening the window on this,' " she said. "The media have been fair. We created this story, not the press."

The victims

Father Groeschel has said he is sensitive to victims. "As a psychologist for priests, I have occasionally spoken to the victims of priests and to their families," he wrote in From Scandal to Hope. "I can only say that I am deeply, deeply grieved. I often had to accept their anger, not directed personally at me, but at Church authorities. ...

"I am willing," he added, "to suffer with the victims."

Mark Serrano, who also has said that Father Hanley abused him as a boy, questioned Father Groeschel's sincerity. His skepticism, he said, is based on an experience he had after his family's complaints led Bishop Rodimer to suspend Father Hanley.

In 1986, the year after the abuse complaints, Mr. Serrano agreed to talk to Father Groeschel, who was counseling Father Hanley. Mr. Serrano, who was then a college student, said he thought the counselor "wanted more information" for therapeutic purposes. Instead, Mr. Serrano said, Father Groeschel lashed out at him.

"He said, 'Why don't you stop harassing this poor priest? He's a sick man. You are wrong for what you're doing to him.' "

Monsignor Kenneth Lasch, a Paterson diocesan priest, said he had urged Mr. Serrano to talk with Father Groeschel because the friar had expressed pastoral concern for Mr. Serrano – "something like, 'Mark seems to be a troubled person.' "

Hearing Mr. Serrano's account of what ensued "left me very, very uncomfortable," Monsignor Lasch said, "and made me wonder what was going on" at Father Groeschel's retreat center.

Father Groeschel's 2002 book warned that Catholics would still face a crisis after "the media monster ... slither[s] away to attack other victims." He prescribed a return to conservative moral teachings, saying that nothing would restore confidence in church leadership "better than a firm stance against pornography, extramarital sex, abortion, euthanasia and the general moral decline of the United States. ... Tough topics like contraception and autoeroticism need to be consistently and publicly addressed."

He said that the news media fail to mention that most priests aren't pedophiles, that cover-ups occur in other denominations, and that abusers "are among the most penitent people I've ever met in my whole life."

He cited the example of the late Atlanta Archbishop Eugene Marino, who resigned in 1990 after an affair with a young woman in lay ministry and went to Father Groeschel's retreat center, in the New York City suburb of Larchmont. He "lived a life of extreme humiliation, humility and penitence," Father Groeschel wrote.

In the mid-1990s, Archbishop Marino became spiritual director of the outpatient Clergy Consultation and Treatment Service at St. Vincent's Hospital, near Trinity Retreat. It was formed at the request of the late Cardinal O'Connor and works closely with the retreat center.

One priest who was counseled by Archbishop Marino and Father Groeschel was the Rev. Morgan Kuhl.

He was sent to them in 1999, after he solicited sex online from undercover officers posing as adolescent boys and was arrested. The subsequent FBI investigation showed that he had met teens this way and abused them.

Clergy treatment

The prosecution of Father Kuhl, who has been removed from ministry, opened a rare window into the Catholic clergy treatment system.

A psychologist who evaluated Father Kuhl for federal prosecutors recommended that he "be enrolled in a program specific to sex offenders," not just in the general psychotherapy and spiritual counseling he was getting. Dr. Barry Katz wrote that the priest "expressed regret over the effects that his actions have had upon himself, but no remorse for the effect that his actions have had upon the minors with whom he was involved."

After pleading guilty, Father Kuhl apologized to a judge for "the hurt and the embarrassment that I have caused so many other people." He also said he had devoted his life to helping others, and had learned in church-sponsored therapy "that there was one person I never did seem to try to help, and that was myself."

U.S. District Judge Anne Thompson initially sentenced Father Kuhl to a short prison term followed by house arrest. But she later reduced the penalty, over the objections of prosecutor Donna Krappa, to five years of probation and ordered the priest to "adhere to the program requirements at Trinity Retreat."

In advocating probation, Father Groeschel represented himself to the court as a counseling psychologist, Ms. Krappa said in an interview. New York state officials said he has never had the license generally required for use of that title. Using the title without a license is a misdemeanor, state officials said.

"I think that the judge would have been interested in this fact," Ms. Krappa said, "when she considered the quality of treatment Father Kuhl was receiving through the archdiocese."


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: catholicchurch; catholiclist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-167 next last
To: sinkspur
Lots and lots of cover-up still goin' on.

Nah. Hit piece. I bet not many gays like "The Courage to be Chaste" written by Fr. Benedict Groeschel and would like the opportunity to impugn his motives.

It turns out that Groeschel doesn't even have the requisite license to practice as a "counseling psychologist" in New York.

It's amazing that you'll depend on one throw away line in a newspaper article to believe the worst about someone who is a man of God.

Fr. Groeschel has a doctorate in psychology from Columbia. Whaddya think he's been doing for the past 30 years? Posing?

51 posted on 03/02/2003 3:24:27 PM PST by american colleen (Christe Eleison!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Can you confirm with other sources, other than this specific journalist or newspaper, that Fr. Groeschel did indeed make this recommendations? If not, all you're doing is forwarding the writings of a journalist with a questionable background.

It's not about the "journalist." Groeschel can clear all this up in short order. Deny or confirm the statements and accusations made in this article, and the other one, which lists three priests, all counseled by Groeschel, who were returned to ministry and abused other young people.

Call the Diocese of Paterson. Ask for Ms. Thompson. Ask her if the statements made in this article are true, or not. In fact, I might do that tomorrow myself.

Should I not believe what Bob Woodward writes because he once screwed around on his wife? To make this about Brooks Egerton is an attempt to change the subject.

52 posted on 03/02/2003 3:29:57 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
Fr. Groeschel has a doctorate in psychology from Columbia. Whaddya think he's been doing for the past 30 years? Posing?

Either he has a license to practice as a "counseling psychologist," or he doesn't.

The prosecutor in the article above thinks it's significant. I'd hardly call that a "throw-away" line.

OK. Groeschel writes against homosexuality. Why did he recommend that actively homosexual men be returned to priestly ministry? Or did he not recognize them as such?

53 posted on 03/02/2003 3:36:19 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Call the Diocese of Paterson. Ask for Ms. Thompson. Ask her if the statements made in this article are true, or not. In fact, I might do that tomorrow myself.

I'm glad you're taking this step. Tell us what happens. Otherwise, it's grossly unfair to Fr. Benedict to characterize him in this way. I agree with Polycarp, he has not obligation to respond to charges from this journalist (though he may want to discern about making a statement in the future).

54 posted on 03/02/2003 3:37:05 PM PST by Pyro7480 (+ Vive Jesus! (Live Jesus!) +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
Nah. Hit piece. I bet not many gays like "The Courage to be Chaste" written by Fr. Benedict Groeschel and would like the opportunity to impugn his motives.

How is Egerton "impugning" Groeschel's motives? What are Groeschel's motives?

Why would a priest who is so outspoken against homosexuality participate in returning men to ministry who have an opportunity to prey on young men again?

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

55 posted on 03/02/2003 3:39:06 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
I agree with Polycarp, he has not obligation to respond to charges from this journalist (though he may want to discern about making a statement in the future).

Nobody has an obligation to respond to any charges made in the media as long as they are willing to live with the consequences of that silence.

56 posted on 03/02/2003 3:40:37 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Unlike the rectors of the seminaries, whom Rose never asked, Groeschel was asked, and refused comment.

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

You can call the article "trash" if you wish. But you cannot refute Groeschel's complicity in returning men to the priesthood who had been abusers. You also cannot refute that one of the victims was verbally accosted by Groeschel and told "what you are doing to this man is wrong."

I'm not refuting that Fr. G may have returned men who had been abusers to the priesthood - he says as much in the quote I posted and also the article you posted here. It seems to me, from wide reading on this subject, that there were very few men barred from returning to their former way of life (including priests, teachers, parents, etc) after counciling and treatment by ALL psychologists... religious and secular. It was understood that the abusers could be treated and cured until very recently.

And do we know what the victim was doing to the priest? I'd like to know more about that story. For instance, he could have been unrelenting in his condemnation of his abuser or he could have been threatening to kill him... one thing is wrong and the other is not.

Hey, Father Groeschel isn't perfect, but he is trying to do the right thing as best he can. He has been a shining light for most of us. This article is a hit piece.

57 posted on 03/02/2003 3:46:21 PM PST by american colleen (Christe Eleison!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Re: your post #53

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? This is stupid.

58 posted on 03/02/2003 3:50:45 PM PST by american colleen (Christe Eleison!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
Hey, Father Groeschel isn't perfect, but he is trying to do the right thing as best he can. He has been a shining light for most of us. This article is a hit piece.

AMEN! Do you know how that is obvious from the article itself? Look at these lines.

The very first line:In the world according to Father Benedict Groeschel, the Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandal is largely the stuff of fiction.
Sorry, he never said that.

He prescribed a return to conservative moral teachings, saying that nothing would restore confidence in church leadership "better than a firm stance against pornography, extramarital sex, abortion, euthanasia and the general moral decline of the United States. ... Tough topics like contraception and autoeroticism need to be consistently and publicly addressed."
Very true, but in context of the rest of this article, why did this need to be mentioned, unless to "out" him as a "closeminded" conservative.

59 posted on 03/02/2003 3:58:37 PM PST by Pyro7480 (+ Vive Jesus! (Live Jesus!) +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp; sinkspur; american colleen; B Knotts; Siobhan; Dajjal
I like this article about as much as a dose of haemorrhoids (sp?), but I think sink has a point here.

The only reason that gay agitprops and the rest are able to attack the Church so liberally at this present time is that grave perversions have taken hold in the priesthood and I am certain that the scandals will take their toll of many more "good" men before this is sorted.

While the number of sex-offenders may be relatively small, the numbers involved in the collusion and cover-up have been massive, and in some respects this is the far greater perversion. I can't remember if it was Leo XIII or St Pius X who warned of the consequences for the Church when "good" men stand back and do nothing.

The see-no-evil, speak-no-evil, hear-no-evil culture of clericalism that liberal and conservative clergy alike are immersed in, has allowed no end of depravity to take place while the priests and the Levites have passed by on the other side.

The greater instinctive loyalty among the conservative clergy, as well as fear of ostracism, will have allowed many of them to be sucked in, at least to the point of erring on the side of generosity.

Psychology is at best an inexact science, if indeed it is really a science at all, and its quite likely that Groeschel has screwed up a few times. He has admitted as much in the above post by Colleen, and why not? - he is not infallible after all.

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.
60 posted on 03/02/2003 4:01:36 PM PST by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
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?

61 posted on 03/02/2003 4:06:05 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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.

62 posted on 03/02/2003 4:06:57 PM PST by american colleen (Christe Eleison!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
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.

63 posted on 03/02/2003 4:13:43 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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.

64 posted on 03/02/2003 4:18:36 PM PST by american colleen (Christe Eleison!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"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? ;)
65 posted on 03/02/2003 4:23:48 PM PST by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
Nice balanced post - thanks!

Outta here, familial duty calls.

66 posted on 03/02/2003 4:24:00 PM PST by american colleen (Christe Eleison!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
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.

67 posted on 03/02/2003 4:26:56 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
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.

68 posted on 03/02/2003 5:02:56 PM PST by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
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.

69 posted on 03/02/2003 5:18:14 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

Comment #70 Removed by Moderator

Comment #71 Removed by Moderator

To: sandyeggo
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.

72 posted on 03/02/2003 8:00:07 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Is his article factual or not? You are confusing facts and evidence. The gentleman has a case. Hitler had a case.
73 posted on 03/02/2003 8:20:04 PM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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.

74 posted on 03/02/2003 8:21:11 PM PST by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Siobhan
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.
75 posted on 03/02/2003 8:22:23 PM PST by Desdemona (Voice, the only musical instrument made by God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
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.
76 posted on 03/02/2003 8:32:29 PM PST by Siobhan (+Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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???

77 posted on 03/02/2003 8:37:05 PM PST by american colleen (Christe Eleison!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
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.
78 posted on 03/02/2003 8:42:48 PM PST by Siobhan (+Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

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

Excellent point.

79 posted on 03/02/2003 8:43:54 PM PST by Siobhan (+Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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!?
80 posted on 03/02/2003 8:47:26 PM PST by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Do you have any comments as to why Groeschel chose not to comment to the writer of this article?

Are you truly THAT ignorant of Christianity? The ultimate act of humility is NOT to answer those who condemn you. For more information on this, see Jesus before the Sanhedrin.
81 posted on 03/02/2003 8:49:51 PM PST by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; Siobhan
Do saints berate victims of sexual abuse?

Funny, you had a much more critical eye when dealing with Michael Rose's reporting in Goodbye, Good Men than you do with this particular reporter, who at least had the "decency" to hide his credentials as the head of a Dallas homo-promo organization.

You are a piece of work.
82 posted on 03/02/2003 9:02:59 PM PST by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
You're right. I would expect an open homosexual to advocate homosexuality.

Which makes it odd for him to write a hit-piece on Fr. Groeschel, if, as you are insinuating, Fr. Groeschel was complicit in covering up/moving around homosexual priests.

This article stinks to high heaven and you are oh so quick to embrace it. Enjoy the stench.
83 posted on 03/02/2003 9:07:15 PM PST by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Nobody has an obligation to respond to any charges made in the media as long as they are willing to live with the consequences of that silence.

Like Christ did, right?
84 posted on 03/02/2003 9:10:24 PM PST by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Your enlightened opinion is sought on this issue...
85 posted on 03/02/2003 9:16:44 PM PST by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Groeschel was complicit.

Even without this article (whomever it's by) and information about three predator priests he helped get reassigned -- it's been clear that from day one, for whatever his reasons, Fr. Groeschel had been part of the cover-up. He has consistently made excuses for the guilty bishops, to help them keep their cushy jobs.

Apparently his own, as well.

Standard Opus Dei lines: the media created the scandal, it's only a handful of priests, these were all long ago before JPII's reforms were in place.

86 posted on 03/02/2003 10:02:37 PM PST by Dajjal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
D'ya know, ya'd almost get the impression that Free Republic was not a forum for posting controversial articles, upon which many people could voice their personal opinions!

A coupla' months ago, I posted this one article, and before 300 comments were through, it was suggested by several people that I should be brought up on charges for formal excommunication or interdiction under Canons 1369 and 1373 just for posting the journalist's essay!

I'd give ya a link ta it, but in the interest of free speech, evenchally the moderator deleted the offending essay and all the comments.

LOL!!!

87 posted on 03/02/2003 10:58:02 PM PST by Dajjal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
They could very well have snowed the therapists into thinking they were just fine and could be trusted again.

If you listen to Fr. Groeschel enough you'll notice that he's enamored of his degree in psychology. He mentions it quite a bit. For this he can be faulted, as he can be faulted for recommending the reassignment of molesting priests, if that's what he in fact did.

However, for working in the slums of NY for almost his entire adult life, he can't be faulted. A passage about splinters and planks comes to mind.

88 posted on 03/03/2003 5:50:09 AM PST by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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.

Facts are facts. But a person's behavior is relevant when assessing that person's ability to make sound judgements. You will know them by what they do.

89 posted on 03/03/2003 6:04:09 AM PST by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

Comment #90 Removed by Moderator

To: drstevej
Yep..Thanks
91 posted on 03/03/2003 7:57:01 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; Antoninus
Fr. Groeschel owes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the author of the article. Fr. Groeschel will be remembered favorably long after the newsie has gone to the grave and well-deserved obscurity. Fr. Groeschel, as a psychologist alone, would owe no answers to the press or media. More importantly, he is a priest of the Roman Catholic Church and, insofar, as he has given pastoral counseling or heard the confessions of those who had misbehaved, he is not even entitled to discuss the matter with others and is protected by civil law from any obligation to do so. He should be prepared to suffer martyrdom before revealing anything of a confidential nature learned in counseling or the hearing of confessions.

No one in his or her right mind blames the press or the media for the controversy. The blame lies with AmChurch liberal spaghetti-spines like Bishop Grahman of Dallas notoriety, Lavender Weakland formerly of Milwaukee, Roger Cardinal McPhony, Bernard Cardinal Lawless, Fr. NAMBLA Slattery, Fr. Geoghan and so many others of the Kumbaya persuasion who have engaged in the full-time headlong crusade to destroy the American Church for the last 40 years and more. Occasionally and quite rarely, someone who is not a militant or malleable Kumbaya is also responsible (Bishop Thomas Daily comes to mind). Purge each and every one. Remove them from their ecclesiastical offices. Defrock them as priests. Remove their left-wing toadies from their positions as termites in the AmChurch bureaucracy.

Fr. Hardon was one of the very last of the Catholic Jesuits and deserves not to be libeled posthumously. Fr. Groeschel is still with us and doing a generally excellent job in spite of being a psychologist. Whoever the idiot New York State official may be who claimed that Fr. Groeschel serving as a "counselling psychologist" without a New York State license to do so is as an ancient British wag once said "a ass, a idiot." The Roman Catholic clergy needs no license to counsel anyone and the First Amendment guarantees that New York State cannot do a thing about it, not that New York is about to try.

Any priest working under the direct supervision of either Fr. Groeschel or the late Fr. Hardon is not likely to offend again while under such supervision. The pederasts and other perverts formerly in the priesthood have conducted themselves despicably but they still need to eat and to work to earn their keep.

How are Fort Worth Catholics coming along on removing the Fort Worth pervert priest imported from Rhode Island by your bishop to run the diocesan Boy Scout program?

Antoninus: This will also serve as an answer to your ping. While I think that everyone (save priests as noted above) should cooperate fully with the exposure before press and media and removal from the priesthood of those demonstrated to be practicing perverts and, under the old John XXIII document of 1961, the removal from the priesthood of those with such disordered inclinations even if non-practicing, Fr, Groeschel has earned the right to the benefit of the doubt as to his handling of such situations.

92 posted on 03/03/2003 8:19:27 AM PST by BlackElk (Viva Cristo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Fr. Groeschel is a Roman Catholic priest. He needs no license from the State of New York or any other gummint busybody. The First Amendment liveth. If the First Amendment should ever die, we should remember that the Roman Catholic Church is possessed of real and permanent authority unlike transitory governments which come and go throughout our Church;s history while we are guaranteed to linger on until the very end.
93 posted on 03/03/2003 8:22:19 AM PST by BlackElk (Viva Cristo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 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?"

Not at all - I hold no candle for bum bandits, and I am certain that this one has singled out Groeschel to further his own agenda. This does not alter the fact that many good conservative priests have wittingly or unwittingly "colluded" in the slide of the American Church into depravity.

Many have known full well what their colleagues have been doing, and what their congregations have been doing with contraceptives, but have kept silent rather than speak out and become unpopular.

"The primary remaining issue is convincing the bishops to embrace the Church's teachings on sexual morality."

I think you are quite right here, but that will probably not happen until the laity repent and embrace the Church's teachings on sexual morality.

The bishops have been getting the message from the laity for the last 30 years that sexual morality doesn't matter and that they are not prepared to embrace the Church's teaching. Consequently the laity have produced and been given the bishops and priests that they deserve.
94 posted on 03/03/2003 8:22:36 AM PST by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
I don't really disagree with anything you've said there, but, as incredible as this seems to us, the bishops are actually supposed to instruct the laity. It's not really supposed to be the other way around, although I acknowledge that it currently is.
95 posted on 03/03/2003 8:31:50 AM PST by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; Siobhan; Antoninus
And we know that Buddy Cotton was a "victim" of sexual abuse BECAUSE............?????????? His accusation is tantamount to conviction, right? Well, maybe he was victimized and maybe he wasn't. This article leaves us remarkbaly uninformed as to the actual details the victimization. We just have to take the newsie's word for it, right?

Assuming that Mr. Cotton was, in fact, victimized that does not exempt him from conducting himself morally thereafter nor prohibit Fr. Groeschel from calling him to account for his shortcomings. That's Fr. Groeschel's job.

96 posted on 03/03/2003 8:32:24 AM PST by BlackElk (Viva Cristo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Name three priest/perverts as to whom Cardinal Lawless relied upon reports by Fr. Groeschel. Alternatively, name three men "like Fr. Groeschel" upon whom Lawless relied and specify the similarity in each instance. Alternatively, retract.
97 posted on 03/03/2003 8:35:36 AM PST by BlackElk (Viva Cristo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
The bishops have been getting the message from the laity for the last 30 years that sexual morality doesn't matter and that they are not prepared to embrace the Church's teaching. Consequently the laity have produced and been given the bishops and priests that they deserve.

The laity consider themselves "sophisticated" in this regard. Big mistake.
98 posted on 03/03/2003 8:37:34 AM PST by Desdemona (Voice, the only musical instrument made by God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Siobhan; sinkspur
Jealousy is your answer, Siobhan. Sinkspur is very jealous because there are virtually no AmChurch Kumbayas in any danger of sainthood. His vague complaint is in the nature of "We're all made of the same clay, you know!" That argument is almost NEVER true and certainly not in this case and if that's the best argument a critic can make, it's not much of an argument.
99 posted on 03/03/2003 8:39:52 AM PST by BlackElk (Viva Cristo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 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"

I think you are correct and we should probably not expect anything else from this sort of vile creature - the pox be upon him!

However, it may just be the case that what he is reporting has some basis in fact, and that Fr Groeschel will have to give some accounting for past mistakes (as will we all either in this life or the next).

Nevertheless, whatever the truth of these reports or not, it will do nothing to diminish the veracity of Fr Groeschel's analysis of the present problem, viz the conversion of the whole Church to God's Law. On this he is infallibly correct!
100 posted on 03/03/2003 8:40:19 AM PST by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-167 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson