Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Groeschel was complicit.
1 posted on 03/02/2003 8:54:18 AM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]

To: .45MAN; AKA Elena; al_c; american colleen; Angelus Errare; Antoninus; aposiopetic; Aquinasfan; ...
2 posted on 03/02/2003 10:56:00 AM PST by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur; Polycarp
This article is a hit piece. A worthless piece of trash.
3 posted on 03/02/2003 11:00:52 AM PST by Siobhan (+Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
Could this still happen?

My take on this media circus is not so much the abuse (although it is detestable) ..Abuse could and does happen everywhere today..the issue is in the coverup and the indifference to the potential future victim

This priest is in a state of denial IMHO

4 posted on 03/02/2003 11:05:39 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
He described the problem as "active homosexuality with minors," stressing that most victims were teenagers and never mentioning girls.

In the whole of the Catholic Church in the US, this problem does not concern large numbers of priests, though it is very hurtful. The article is written to make it sound like Fr. Groeschel is blowing the problem off, when it seems to me he's only putting it into perspective. The above quote shows where the majority of the problems lie, and that can only be solved by weeding out those men during their Seminary training when it shows up, and it always does.

He may have sent a few priests back to active ministry, but remember, the most egregious of these molesters are usually described as nice men who are very popular in their Parishes. They could very well have snowed the therapists into thinking they were just fine and could be trusted again.

16 posted on 03/02/2003 11:43:08 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
Groeschel was complicit.

You make this sort of declaration with only a newspaper story or two to back it up. That is truly pitiful and reprehensible, sinkspur.

17 posted on 03/02/2003 11:44:21 AM PST by Siobhan (+Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
If Father Groeschel is a psychologist then he knows better. The prevailing belief is that sexual abusers cannot be rehabilitated easily, if at all.

I don't know what to believe here.
25 posted on 03/02/2003 12:18:53 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur; Polycarp; Siobhan
I was very suspicious about this article. I the author a pro-homosexuality zealot, eager to go after moral absolutists? He really seems to have an axe to grind.

Well, I did a little googling, and voila: the author of the article is, in fact, chairman of the Texas chapter of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists.

Whatever mistakes Fr. Groeschel made in the specific cases cited, he is absolutely right when he says that the chief problem is "active homosexuality with minors."

And it is true that the media have blown the problem out of proportion, in relation to the level abuse in Protestant denominations and other institutions.

If he has credible evidence that Fr. Groeschel intentionally placed priests that he knew would reoffend, then out with it.

The media have studiously avoided using the term "homosexuality" and have dishonestly instead used "pedophilia" to describe the context of this crisis.

I know your purpose in posting this is to promote your cause of a married priesthood, but posting this kind of biased, agenda-driven crap is below you.

31 posted on 03/02/2003 1:47:18 PM PST by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
Groeschel was complicit.

Groeschel is delusional, like many prelates in the church. Either that, or he has intentionally ignored the depositions made by hundreds of victims. Then again, he is a professionally trained psychologist. As such, he can justify just about any act away, by ascribing some psychobabble term to the condition..

No, folks, we are witnessing a cleansing of the church. It may take years before all of these miscreants are purged from Holy Mother Church. More important will be the fate of the Holy Father. How the cardinals vote after he dies, may well determine the future course taken by the church. Until then, let heads roll.

32 posted on 03/02/2003 2:13:58 PM PST by NYer (Kyrie Eleison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
I believe the Opus-Deish "it's the media's fault" excuse to be cravenly with a subtle hinting of Anti-Semitism.

One of the best refutations of the "it's the media's fault" excuse is Brooklyn priest Fr. Joseph Wilson's response to this statement from Priests For Life which parroted that accusation in May 2002.

Here is an excerpt from Fr. Wilson's response:

Now, Mr. DeStefano crosses over the line into the offensive and the harmful when he speaks in this essay of the media. I read with disbelief lines such as, "But, come on; we know what this is really about, don't we? The current feeding frenzy in the press has little to do with any real concern for the victims of sexual abuse. ...Throughout this country the haters of the Catholic Church are grinding their axes, ecstatic the chance..." Or this chestnut: "All the indignant cries for justice emanating from the Church-bashers in the media are a sham." Or this; "...their true aim is to hurt the Church, to damage its credibility..."

What could one possibly say that is bad enough about such a superficial, shallow analysis?

First off, one distinguishes between factual reporting and opinion/editorial. Factual reporting one judges on the basis of the comprehensiveness, fairness and clarity of the reporting of facts. Op/ed, being opinion, rises or falls on the strength of the facts on which it is based, the case that is built upon them, and the mode of expression. In my own judgment, for example, the opinion pieces of Jimmy Breslin are skewed, biased and worthless, although he has the right to express those opinions. But I had better be able to distinguish between the opinion pieces and the reporting.

Friday morning I watched Massachusetts D. A. Margaret Coakley preside at the press conference on the arrest of Fr. Paul Shanley. She went out of her way to observe that her office lacked the resources to conduct manhunts, and to commend the media for using its resources not just to locate Fr. Shanley, but to research and profile the activities of predator priests like him so that the authorities and the public understood better the seriousness of the problem. And she observed that there were many victims who were experiencing some relief at this arrest who have the media to thank for it.

NOT the Church. The media.

With a file full, a thousand and a half pages on the disgusting activities of Shanley, two Cardinals of the Archdiocese of Boston thought he'd make a good Pastor. Because of that, a six year old boy was raped repeatedly for years by his pastor. It was the complaint of that boy, now 24 and scarred for life, which landed Shanley in jail. As far as the Church was concerned, he was fit to be a Pastor, fit to travel all over the country lecturing, fit to give a lecture as part of my seminary training. Worthy of a warm, glowing letter of commendation from Cardinal Law as late as 1997.

I honestly find Mr. DeStefano's comments about the media offensive. He begins his essay by noting that there are many good Priests. Obviously, he is concerned that they not all be tarred with the same brush. How ironic that he then turns and does precisely that to the media. In the media, and in public life, there are people who have performed a signal service to the victims, which their Church was not willing or able to perform, and they performed a service for the Church itself, which quite evidently is in more trouble than it realizes.

Take the Dallas case. NONE of the victims of Frs. Rudy Kos, Robert Peebles, or Billy Hughes went first to the media. Nor did they go first to their attorneys. They went to the Church first; there, they were stonewalled, lied to, misled as delay tactics were used to push the matter past the statute of limitations.

Fr. Peebles was arrested for attempted rape of a boy on the Air Force base where he served as chaplain. The boy, from his former parish in Dallas, was visiting him for the weekend. The Diocese of Dallas prevented his prosecution by arranging for a discharge on condition that he get treatment, as their pastor assured the boy's parents that the priest would get help. Well, he did not -- the diocese broke its promise to the parents of the boy and to the armed forces. He was reassigned, to St. Augustine Church in Dallas. From there he was arrested for abusing kids -- and the people of St. Augustine and the family of the first boy found out that in both instances, Peebles had been assigned to their parishes with prior histories of abusing kids -- and NO WARNING to the parishioners at all.

Fr. Bill Hughes carried on an affair nightly with a fifteen year old girl until her mom got suspicious and found love letters. She brought them to a trusted priest who took them and promised to pass them on --it would be dealt with. The letters were never seen again, of course, and nothing was done with Fr Hughes.

The Fr. Kos case makes no sense from soup to nuts. Married in the Church and divorced, someone wanted him in the seminary so badly that a fraudulent annulment was obtained for him DESPITE the fact that his wife contacted the diocese to say, "He can't be a PRIEST! I threw him out because he likes BOYS!" Someone wanted to keep him so badly that the administration and vicar general ignored the complaints of seminarians -- including persons known to me and friends of mine -- that Kos, in the seminary, was preying upon the college seminarians.

When the Kos case was done, the Judge did an unusual thing. He read, at the request of the jury, a statement from them publicly rebuking the Bishop of Dallas and the Vicar General for testimony which was not forthcoming and obfuscatory. Again, please remember, the victims did not first go to the press, or to the law office. But the press and the law office were their refuge, when their Church betrayed them.

And let us not palaver that nonsensical, "If we had known then what we know now..." The terrible effects of clergy sexual abuse on victims and families, and the cretinous harm done by Church stonewalling, was quite clear to us in Dallas from the 1984 Gilbert Gauthe case in Lafayette -- we had Lafayette guys studying with us. We ALL knew of the damage done by the Vicar General and Bishop there. Just as the Boston folk knew of Dallas.

I am sorry to burden you with what is already a lengthy letter, but precisely one of my problems with Mr. DeStefano's essay is that he has produced a brief cheerleading essay on an immensely complicated subject requiring nuanced care. Let me give you an example from my experience which made me cringe when I read Mr. DeStefano's strident, "For goodness sakes, enough with the Mea Culpas!"

There is a lady named Janet Patterson. She and her husband live in the Diocese of Wichita, Kansas; they have raised their family to be devout Catholics. Her son Eric, a remarkably gifted young man who had a lot of accomplishments to his credit, killed himself perhaps two years ago at the age of 29. Shortly before that, the family had discovered that the reason for the deep depression which had plagued Eric was the sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of his parish priest as an altar boy, from the age of thirteen.

Janet, who is a teacher, went to the diocese to tell them about the abuse her son had suffered at the hands of Fr. Larson. The priest she spoke with in the chancery office was well known to her -- he had grown up in her town. He listened to her and grew very still and sad. He told her, "We had no idea this went back to then. Father Larson is no longer serving as a priest. We thought the abuse started in the parish after yours."

Janet left somewhat comforted. At least she had the consolation of knowing that her diocese had not knowingly put this predator, who was responsible for her son's death, in their parish.

Then, of course, she finds out that it wasn't true. Fr. Larson had indeed abused kids in the parishes before hers, and had been transferred like a chess piece. It would be nice to think that it were at least theoretically possible for chancery officials to tell the truth once in a while, but, evidently, this is not a consolation we are granted in this life. Six altar boys who had served under this priest are suicides. Fr. Larson is in jail today -- but not thanks to the Church. As for Janet and her family -- no priest has reached out to them since the allegations became public.

I was put in touch with them through the editor of The Wanderer, and we have spoken often. I asked Fr Tom Doyle, O.P., who was at the time stationed in the Midwest, to give her a call, and he said, "But she's just three states away" --and he DROVE there. But her local diocese has been of no support.

Do you know of Father Doyle? He was once the secretary to the papal pro nuncio in Washington. He helped develop the 1985 secret report on the potential ramifications of the pedophilia crisis. He produced a report predicting a staggering array of scandals, billions of dollars in legal fees etc. The report was shelved by the bishops. So was Fr. Doyle, who pressed for the report's acceptance, and was canned. He has been in an ecclesial limbo since, but has made himself helpful to the victims and their attorneys as they come up in litigation against bishops like Cardinal Law, who perpetually bleat, "But we did not know" about things that were in Fr Doyle's report to them seventeen years ago.

Mr. Horn, I wish I could say, "So, that's the story," but it isn't even the beginning of the story. It is a tiny sliver, a tiny sliver of a huge, sordid, perverted epic.

Mr. DeStefano's essay was not an encouragement to me in my "wonderful work." It was utterly demoralizing. One cannot look at this pedophilia scandal in isolation. There are at least twelve MAJOR AREAS of the life of our Church which are in serious crisis, and have been for two generations. I think of Liturgy, of Catechesis, of Scripture, of Moral Theology, of Religious Life, of Seminaries, of Priesthood, of Marriage and Family Life, for starters. I think of the faithful lay Catholics who have striven insistently to bring to the attention of the Bishops and the Holy See the crises of our Church. I think of how often it could have been the case that our Bishops might have helped and healed, if only they were capable of responding as human beings to people in pain. The whole country has been appalled at how they have at not "gotten it," at how utterly divorced from the ordinary concerns of people the bishops have been (please think of Paul Shanley roaming the country, and of the number of bishops who made that possible, in Boston and elsewhere, before you react to that).

I think of all of these things, and then I think of Mr. DeStefano's essay.

No. We have not had ENOUGH of the Mea Culpas. I do not think Janet Patterson has heard all that she needs to from the Bishop who has never been in touch with her, let alone from the Cardinal of Boston who thinks Shanley was an example of "poor record keeping," as though if the Boston chancery improves its secretarial skills there will be no pedophiles left in the archdiocese. As though two cardinals needed help figuring out what Margaret Gallant, a lay woman, knew and told them about John Geoghan: that he did not need to be a Priest.

No. We do not need to blame MTV and sexually explicit media for things we have fostered in our own institutions.

No. We should be embarrassed and ashamed to blame the media for "Church-bashing" when they are just pointing out the sordid facts about how our Bishops go about their business. If society were indifferent to the fact that there are pedophile priests, and Bishops who cover up for them, THEN we would have reason to be outraged. We have NO REASON to be outraged that they take our teachings in this area more seriously than we do. We have NO REASON to be outraged at them because they are outraged that we do not live up to our own teachings.

40 posted on 03/02/2003 2:54:39 PM PST by Dajjal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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
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.


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

To: sinkspur
For later read.
108 posted on 03/03/2003 10:57:52 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
Well, after reading the article, it is apparent that Fr.G. may have made a couple of mistakes--although the article is written in a rather obfuscatory fashion (as you probably noted, yourself.)

Now if FrG treated 100 people and 3 are recidivists despite his opinion that they were 'fixed,' that's not bad. I believe that AA expects 80% recidivism, as a comparison.

It is certainly the case that the press has had a feeding frenzy on the topic of abuse, and it is certainly the case that much of the brouhaha is in reference to crimes committed over 10 years ago--and up to 40 years ago. Some of the "crimes" are still allegations.

OTOH, it's ALSO interesting that Bp. Rodimer was perfectly happy to blame FrG for one of Rodimer's problems. Just exactly WHO is the Diocesan Bishop? Who is geographically closest to the priest? Who SHOULD be getting reports from the faithful and other priests who live with the problem?

Methinks Rodimer is passing the buck.

And HERE is the real problem. Bishops pass the buck (as you have tirelessly noted.) They are wrong to do so, and they are (in at least a few cases) culpable.

Given what we all know about this mess, seems to me that FrG is a VERY minor player, compared to people like Grohmann and Weakland (to name only two.)

(BTW, did you know that Rudy Kos was acquainted with the Milwaukee seminary as well??)
159 posted on 03/04/2003 9:29:07 AM PST by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

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