Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: american colleen
Funny how some lambasted Michael Rose for not interviewing the rectors of the seminaries he was writing about and the author of the article posted here has done the same thing.

Perhaps you missed this, colleen:

Father Groeschel, who declined interview requests, has not said publicly how many of his clients were accused of abuse.

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

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."

If Egerton's wrong, or is engaged in a smear, there is one man who can clear things up and whom I would believe over the author.

Let's see if he'll come forward.

42 posted on 03/02/2003 2:59:36 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: sinkspur
You're shameless, Sink.

I really thought you above this kind of thing, at least after the agenda of the author has been revealed.

Swallow your pride and admit your article is a gay agenda driven hit piece to which Groeschel has to obligation no respond, OK?

Its too easy to see through this, now that the other pieces of the puzzle are revealed.

43 posted on 03/02/2003 3:04:39 PM PST by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | 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 ]

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