[sinkspur]

Those who criticized Groeschel due to that smear article will answer to God for their slander.

And psychological "experts" who put men back into the active ministry who were active homosexuals or repeat pedophiles will have to do the same.

That's after they answer to the multiple lawsuits still in the wings.

You say the article is a "smear"; it is one side of the story.

As for Ratzinger's remarks, he, like Groeschel, miss the point. The issue is not how many abusers there are or were in the priesthood; the issue is the cover-up by bishops and those who enabled the bishops to carry out that cover-up!

That's the news story, and is a legitimate one.

[nickcarraway]

You don't care about any of the distortions in the article, or the fact that the writer concealed his agenda? What's more important the truth, or that ``the right people'' get criticized?

[Antoninus]

Will you issue a "mea culpa" now, or are you going to post a separate thread apologizing for getting fooled and jumping to conclusions based on an agenda-driven, hit-piece?

I forgive you in advance.

[ninenot]

Well--based on what I read here, the Dallas journalist has some critical facts wrong--or 'twisted' them to make HIS case.

Yes, the Bishops are a problem. But it does not appear that FrG is nearly as much a problem as the (biased???) reporter would have it---

In fact, it seems that FrG is NO problem at all.

[Desdemona]

The issue is not how many abusers there are or were in the priesthood; the issue is the cover-up by bishops and those who enabled the bishops to carry out that cover-up!

That's the news story, and is a legitimate one.

That being the case, it would be helpful if the journalists in question would quit gunning for the Woodward and Bernstein prize and build the story using complete facts, not half truths and innuendo. Even in the Watergate affair, the Washingtom Post had the courtesy to pass a story by the target before it was printed, true or not. This is sloppy, shoddy, yellow journalism straight out of the William Randolf Hearst vs. Joseph Pulizer playbook.

In addition, why are the actual bishops and cardinals who are guilty of the cover-up not stuck in the spotlight like Groeschel is. Bernardin so far has gotten a pass. People like Mahoney and Adamac should be in the crosshairs, not men like Groeschel who do Christ's work and take the heat for it.

[Illbay]

You got it, Sink. And every time someone tries to bring up that point, this "1% of priests" thing is brought up. Well, what percentage of the hierarchy has been involved in the cover up?

[fatima]

"No. Did he tell Mark Serrano to leave Fr. Hanley alone? Did he scold him for coming forward with accusations of abuse?"

Sorry sinkspur but my search on father Hanley came up with your name,first hit,who is he.

[Dajjal]

As for Ratzinger's remarks, he, like Groeschel, miss the point. The issue is not how many abusers there are or were in the priesthood; the issue is the cover-up by bishops and those who enabled the bishops to carry out that cover-up!
That's the news story, and is a legitimate one.
8 posted on 03/06/2003 10:26 AM PST by sinkspur

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?