Nothing about that here.
I was never involved with such a case before and I was startled by the degree of anger and hurt Hanley’s sinful behavior had generated. Since that time I have worked with a number of victims and I accept their anger as appropriate and say so in my book, From Scandal to Hope (OSV 2002). I had nothing to do with the reappointment of James Hanley to another parish after he was removed from Mendham as a result of serious accusations of abuse of minors. In fact, I had never heard of the case. I became involved when Hanley came on retreat after he was removed a second time from a new assignment because his picture appeared in the diocesan paper with a group of altar boys. I totally agreed with the Serano family, who apparently acquiesced to his reassignment, that this was a serious violation of a provision that had been given to them, namely, that Hanley not work with minors. No additional charges of misconduct were made as far as I know from Hanley’s second assignment. I strongly suggested that he not be assigned to any parish duties and that he be supervised closely. Hanley at this time was an active AA member and was very remorseful.
The bigger picture is how much did Groeschel know and how many of these abusers was he involved with?
Are you just impugning Fr. G. on your own information or does this have anything to do with the DMN article you posted? You could ask this same exact question of many? most? priests in almost any of the affected dioceses. Stick to the facts as Fr. G. has done. He cannot answer your personal charges against him unless you maybe post your own vanity thread here and ping him or write to him with your question.
That will come out in a courtroom.
Let it all hang out! The sooner the better. I don't believe there is one Catholic out there who disagrees with that.
Well, it appears that Groeschel's compassion did evolve, though it is puzzling to me why a psychologist would not know that sexual abuse was hurtful to the victim and would generate a great deal of anger.