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

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

[Antoninus]

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.

[Antoninus]

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.

[Antoninus]

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.

[Antoninus]

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?

[Antoninus]

Your enlightened opinion is sought on this issue...

[Dajjal]

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.

[Dajjal]

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!!!

[Aquinasfan]

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.

[Aquinasfan]

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.

[RnMomof7]

Yep..Thanks

[BlackElk]

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.

[BlackElk]

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.

[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?"

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.

[B Knotts]

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.

[BlackElk]

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.

[BlackElk]

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.

[Desdemona]

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.

[BlackElk]

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.

[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"

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!