Posted on 03/06/2003 8:29:10 AM PST by Polycarp
Response to Brooks Egerton’s Article of March 2, 2003 in the Dallas Morning News
The headline of this article claiming that I played down the abuse crisis is an absolute untruth. Anyone reading my books or listening to my talks on this subject knows that this is utterly untrue, that it is a smear.
I must respond carefully to the rest of Egerton’s article because of professional confidentiality. I cannot even acknowledge that I spoke to certain people because of their right to privacy.
A few obvious points:
Egerton says that according to me the sexual abuse scandal is “largely the stuff of fiction”. Any honest person reading my book From Scandal to Hope (Our Sunday Visitor Press 2002) will see that this is a complete distortion, an almost incredible denial of what my book is about. I do stand by my statement that the secular media have taken the scandal out of proportion, ignored many charges of abuse of minors and committed by others in professional roles, created the impression that this is only a problem of Catholic clergy. Writers as varied as George Weigel, Philip Jenkins, Andrew Greeley, Richard Neauhaus and Peter Steinfels have all been critical of the media coverage of these scandals.
I agree with the assessment of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Dean of the College of Cardinals on this issue:
“In the United States, there is constant news on this topic, but less than 1% of priests are guilty of acts of this type. The constant presence of these news items does not correspond to the objectivity of the information nor to the statistical objectivity of the facts. Therefore, one comes to the conclusion that it is intentional, manipulated and that there is a desire to discredit the Church. It is a logical and well-founded conclusion.” Cardinal Ratzinger characterizes the media coverage as a planned campaign.
A number of factual distortions should be indicated. Egerton mentions that 85 priests have returned to the active ministry through Trinity Retreat, implying that some of these priests had difficulties with minors. These were priests on leaves of absence, not priests who had been accused of any misbehavior at all.
I have not been the director of Trinity Retreat for ten years. This retreat for priests has never has been referred to before as a mansion. In fact, I don’t even live in the building, I have lived for years in the garage.
I did not decline to be interviewed. I never spoke to Mr. Egerton because I was not at home when he called. After this article I am grateful to God I did not talk to him.
Fr. Richard Brown never assisted in the management of Trinity Retreat. He did typing and recorded reservations for priests coming on retreat. He lived a most prayerful and ascetical life while here and he had done so for many years before as many people have said. He did no pastoral work in the New York Archdiocese, nor did anyone ever request permission for him to do so.
I cannot comment on the allegations of the representative of the Paterson Diocese, except to say that my role is significantly misrepresented. I have requested a formal clarification.
I can say Morgan Kuhl never received any treatment from me and was in fact directly enrolled in a formal treatment program elsewhere. We provided a supervised residence, which the court agreed to continue.
As to the issue of my not having a license: a Doctor of Psychology does not need a license unless he is receiving third part payments for instance from an insurance company or an agency. I never intended to receive any pay doing psychological counseling or spiritual direction, so I never bothered about a license. In fact I have never been paid a cent for my services that Mr. Egerton refers to as “business”. It is not uncommon for professors of psychology not to obtain licenses to practice, because clinical practice is not our principal vocation.
I stand by what I have written in From Scandal to Hope.
Mr. Egerton’s article is a prime example of the hostility, distortion and planned attack on the Catholic Church in the United States by certain segments of the media.
I also wish to acknowledge the support and encouragement of countless numbers of people whom I meet in my preaching travels and who only recognize me as a Catholic priest and religious. People when they warmly greet me they are at least four times more friendly than they were two years ago. The American people have a sense of fair play and many of them, including many clergymen of other denominations have indicated to me that they believe Catholic priests are being victimized by an abuse of the power of the media.
Of course I will keep Mr. Egerton in my prayers for himself and his personal intentions. This is required by the gospel. He’s also done me a favor proving the adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity. In the Sermon On The Mount, (Matthew 5:11) Jesus reassures us when He says, “Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad for your reward is very great in heaven.”
Never mind the Holy See, the cardinals and bishops have to face up to who is in charge of the parishes... most of them cannot control even the heresy and lack of belief in the Magisterium/Faith that eminates from the parish pulpits - which is just as/almost as damaging as an actively homosexual priest (leaving out the abusers here - they are even more damaging to the Faith). Until the bishops act and believe in what they are called to do, the Holy See is almost a moot point - since most?/some?/a lot?/too many? of the bishops ignore the Vatican anyway.
I don't know that Cardinal Ratzinger is exercising damage control - hell, most of the time the press only uses the word pedophelia and not active or abusing homosexuals - so it is possible that his 1% estimate was based on true pedophelia and only in response to that narrow charge.
Lookit this, a direct example of the difference in the AmChurch and the Vatican's belief in the homosexual inclination having an effect on priestly ordination:
"The Vatican made it clear in a letter issued in October 1986 that homosexual orientation should be viewed 'as an objective disorder'.""The letter was one of the Vatican's most definitive pronouncements on homosexuality. In the letter, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said that 'although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not itself a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder'."
"That contradicted the U.S. bishops' 1976 position, which noted a distinction between homosexual acts, believed to be sinful, and a homosexual orientation."
Anyhow, numbers cited are certainly only speculative unless a poll is taken including all priests and then they are asked directly "are you a homosexual" and then they answer honestly. Which ain't gonna happen. One thing is for sure - all the priests who left to marry in the 60s and 70s certainly skewed the numbers... either way, it seems to me that the bottom line with sin is that it is usually connected to sex in some way.
Keeping on topic... I'm glad Fr. Groeschel answered the charges levied at him by Mr. Egerton and the DMN. I wonder if the DMN bothered to print Fr. G's words.
Got links to the story? I'd like to check it out and compare it with what is going on here.
Ya know, I am probably in the minority here, but the whole thing with declaring bankrupcy looks good to me. All victims come foreward, file the lawsuits and get the money. And they are at least compensated financially if not emotionally - and the lawyers and bad feeling generated from all the legal tactics on both sides are done with. I look at some of the holdings that we have here in the Archdiocese of Boston - like the chancery and land holdings and the seminary (combine it with another state, only 4 seminarians there anyway and it would free up for parish work priests who are professors there) - and I just say to myself, get rid of them. The bishop can live in a rectory (plenty of room in most of them!) just like any other priest.
Get rid of the stupid (in our case) "Boston Catholic Television" -- a duplication of efforts since there is EWTN and our BCTV is vastly inferior, broadcasting a lousy Mass from the chancery with no one in attendance, old TV shows and some odd priests occasionally - one was preaching from the pulpit to an empty parish about "centering prayer" a couple of weeks ago. He's also one that is not orthodox in other things. But I think every Bishop likes to have his own TV station that he heads up and so many of them resent Mother Angelica and what she has done and what she stands for.
And the chancery is a mess. Tons of duplicated effort by priests who could be out in a parish. I know one young, orthodox priest who is bilingual and who looks for work... calls area parishes every day to say Mass as a visiting priest. This guy should have his own parish which would be orthodox and vibrant.
The other day for the Lenten Mass the new bishop decided he wanted to do it at noon and therefore, change the old practice of doing it at 11 AM. I heard that the priests in the chancery were all up in arms, really upset. They carried on and on about it and were bent out of shape because "this isn't what we always did" -- too much time on their hands, it seems like. A bunch of old ladies.
Also, too many parishes. Although the number of Catholics has increased over the years, hardly any of them attend Mass - it seems to me that we are decrying a lack of priests although this lack of priests is geared to the number of parishes and not the actual number of practicing Catholics. So if you look at it that way, there probably is no real shortage of priests. Remember years ago (I'm 43) there would be standing room only if you arrived at Mass within 10 minutes of it starting. Today, there are tons of empty seats. I'm no martyr, but I wouldn't mind driving a piece for Sunday Mass - although it is nice to have daily Mass 5 minutes away and I probably couldn't attend daily Mass if it wasn't so close (kids are home until 9 AM school starts).
OK, enough of this rant! I have to go replace some plumbing in the bathrooms and take off for a haircut.
Oh, I think they get it fine. It is just a matter of where our country is - live and let live and nothing is a sin or wrong. Look at the push for same sex marriage... which is currently going on here in Massachusetts (and there are quite a few priests who support it as we are an "inclusive" church, doncha know). But it isn't politically correct to delve too deeply into the problems same sex marriage presents. It's a hot potato issue and people stay away from it so they can't be called a homophobe or a right wing hater or a bigot. Same with the pedophelia word (non sexual orientation word) as opposed to the homosexuality word.
Even if you don't look at these issues with "Catholic" or "Christian" eyes, mind and soul, common sense tells us that homosexuals have on the whole, many, many more sexual partners than heterosexuals do. Homosexual "unions" don't last very long. Homosexual men (women? - not sure) are attracted to those much younger than they are. One of the kindest most gentle and giving men I ever met was my across the hall neighbor when I lived in a condo (and who helped me out with some tough things years ago) he was an active homosexual... a constant parade of beautiful men month after month. God rest his soul and have mercy on him, he is dead now. You know how. At age 44. Well, I knew his friends as well. And it is a much different lifestyle than heterosexuals live. It's pitiful and sad and honestly, none of them that I knew were truly happy and peaceful men.
Gotta go, plumbing has to wait but the haircut can't!
Can you give me some names on this issue? I trust sociologists about as much as I trust psychologists and psychiatrists.
The rest of your post...
The Vatican has done nothing more and nothing less than has been done in the past... witness the 1961 statement on homosexuality and also the one from the 1930s (and I'm sure before that as well, but I've not looked that far back)... all three statements basically say the same thing - no one with a homosexual tendency should be ordained. This reminds me of those Catholics like Frances Kissling who say that they are not excommunicated unless the Vatican literally sends someone to her house and tells her she is excommunicated. She hasn't heard from anyone with "standing," so she says she is a practicing Catholic in good standing. I guess she expects the Swiss Guard or maybe the pope himself to knock on her door and hand her a document outlining why she should not be calling herself a Catholic. Listen, we all know the "rules" and we all have a conscience - sadly, too many not formed correctly.
"Swimming in a sea of corruption" --- maybe so, but this generation isn't the first dealing with corruption. The gates won't prevail, we know that. There are also a lot of wonderful things going on in the Church today.
Gross, isn't it.
The money thing makes me uncomfortable... how does getting $100,000 make being abused feel better? One is separate from the other. OTOH, getting money from the archdiocese that enabled a priest to abuse and keep on abusing is maybe not a bad thing - since money means so much to us. However, I have never seen a victim not take the money and donate it to charity. And then you have the blood sucking attorneys - again, I've not seen one of them forgo the customary 1/3 of whatever settlement amount they get - or even opt for a smaller percentage. Of course a bigger settlement means more $$$ in their pockets...
Releasing the names of priests accused of abuse... a can of worms. How do you defend yourself if you are dead or senile in a nursing home? How do we know that some accusations aren't false? And how does a priest accused of abuse have any credibility at all if his name is public property and additional accusers come forward - he is already guilty of some abuse and has no leg to stand on with new accusations that may be false. It was a terrible thing when Keeler released those names. I recall one of the priests in Keeler's diocese was accused only of having consensual homosexual relations with a 17 year old prostitute 20 years ago. He is no longer a priest, thank God, and he has been celibate and repentant since. And now the entire story is public.
The next step being pushed is releasing the files of ALL priests in the name of openness and transparacy. This is going on here in Boston and being pushed by the victim groups and the VOTF types.
Here is the article I spoke about earlier. I guess we can both cite the old adage "figures don't lie, but liars can figure." Let me say that even one priest dying of sexually contracted AIDS is one too many.
Kansas City Star Survey Claims Priests More Likely to Have Aids: Report Not Scientifically Accurate
ABSTRACT: According to a recent article by the Kansas City Star, Catholic priests are four times more likely to have AIDS than society at large. The sensationalist slant offered in this article, used a flawed research design to arrive at conclusions unsupported by the data.
ROME, FEB 2 (ZENIT).- A recent series of articles by the Kansas City Star has awakened discussion and debate in the Church about the occurrence of AIDS among its priests. According to the first of the series, Catholic priests are four times more likely to have AIDS than society at large. The first three reports are online at KCStar .
A Flawed Survey
The assertions about the demographics of AIDS among priests are based on a survey that the newspaper sent out to 3,000 priests, both diocesan and religious, from all over the country. A total of 801 priests responded, only 27%. This makes the survey a self-selected group, already making the results suspect.
Given that the survey was confidential, after this self-selection, it is impossible to know if all the respondents came from one part of the country or shared some other demographical trait. It is even possible that priests who weren't HIV positive would have felt that the survey didn't apply to them and ignored it. All of these factors make the results at the very least questionable.
Four Times More Likely?
The Kansas City Star's survey indicates that 0.5% of the respondents have AIDS—4 priests out of this group. Another 3 priests said they were unsure and hadn't been tested. In its analysis, the newspaper assumes that this means that 0.9% of all U.S. priests have AIDS. This represents four times the AIDS rate in the general public, according to the article, citing figures from the Center for Disease control (CDC).
However, the numbers don't seem to match up.
The CDC estimates that there are between 650,000 and 900,000 Americans with AIDS: 0.25-0.35% of the general population (cf. 1997 World AIDS Day Pamphlet). This would seem to justify the newspaper's assertion that priests are four times more likely to have the disease, if we take the lowest estimates for the general public and the highest estimates for priests.
When one considers that most AIDS patients are men (women represent only 20% of new AIDS cases), the CDC figures would have to fall very close to or above the 0.5% figure of priests who actually reported having the disease. Furthermore, since children make up a relatively small group among AIDS victims, the percentage of adult males suffering from AIDS would be even higher, possibly even exceeding the rate seen among priests in the survey. At any rate, a far cry from the four times higher rate of HIV cited in the article.
The article strongly emphasizes the figures that 58% of respondents personally knew “priests who died of an AIDS-related illness” and 30% “know priests with HIV or AIDS.” These figures could, however, point to nothing more than the intimacy of dioceses and religious orders. Priests within the diocese tend to know one another, and this is even truer among the religious. It is not clear that there is anything unusual involved here at all. The article only provides the figures—presented in the lead paragraph as the most important fact in the article—and leaves it up to the reader to determine their meaning.
The AIDS epidemic must be faced by the Church with compassion, and must be headed off by education, both for children and in seminary formation. Accurate studies can help the Church identify where its problem areas lie. The sensationalist slant on the data provided by the Kansas City Star, however, would tend to impede, rather than encourage, serious dialogue and study.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ZENIT is an International News Agency based in Rome whose mission is to provide objective and professional coverage of events, documents and issues emanating from or concerning the Catholic Church for a worldwide audience, especially the media.
Copyright © 2000 ZENIT
No. But I do give people the benefit of the doubt - Cardinal George said he didn't know about the priest's past - should he have? Ya. I'll have to re-read his statement on this. All in all, every day I see the wiseness of a George Weigel who says that we are all called to a life of piety and conversion... if each one of us took our faith and lived it, there would be no such stories. And in that same vein, I am reminded every single day of the Pharisees. Listen to what they say, but do not imitate their ways. Put your faith in no man.
I don't know about the other story, but I will look into it sometime today and comment back about it.
Can we not (I'm begging you) have this escalate into a "Rome is corrupt" "the pope is complicit" conversation?
Do you REALLY not understand that the REAL scandal here is NOT that a few priests were "bad apples," but that the hierarchy continued to cover for them, move them from one assignment to another without dealing with them as they should have, and attempted to cover everything up and deny everything.
[snip]
So yes, you're right: Probably 1%, maybe LESS.
[snip]
51 posted on 03/06/2003 6:30 PM PST by Illbay
Exactly. The bishops are the real scandal, and Fr. Groeschel is in the news because he appears to have been complicit with the bishops in some cases.
And can you imagine what would happen to a fast food chain in which it was discovered that "only 1%" of its employees molested children who came in for Kiddie Meals, and the CEO chose not to punish any of the store managers?
To your question: simple answer: Fr. Groeschel simply calls a spade a spade---homosexual attacks on children.
The Bishops who are questionable are members of, or have significant ties to, the "network." They are automatically exempt from questioning.
78 posted on 03/07/2003 7:25 AM PST by ninenot
Well, then, my question is: Why is Fr. “Call A Spade A Spade” Groeschel running interference for the guilty bishops and deflecting scrutiny with his “It’s all the media’s fault” campaign?
You appear to be very tired.
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.
