Replies

Dear dsc,

"I didn't see you denying that abuse took place on his watch, or that he had a swimming pool put in."

That he had a swimming pool put in at his new residence doesn't justify comments about inviting over young boys. As for the cases of abuse, perhaps you haven't read this thread carefully. Please refer to post #56, where AlguyA explains thusly:

"Actually, there is nothing coincedental about it at all. Myers left our diocese in Sept. of 2001. In Jan. of 2002, the Boston Globe launched the series of articles which drew national attention to the scandal. At that point, the victims came forward.

"Also, in each instance (with the exception of the one case I outlined before) the abuse took place years before Myers was appointed Bishop. It was the national attention, which even the victims admit, caused them to come forward. And they didn't come forward until after Myers had already left."

It seems that the circumstances of these cases support the assertion that Archbishop Myers did nothing wrong here, had no knowledge of these cases, and cases of abuse didn't actually occur during his time in this archdiocese. The one case referred to here as occuring during his reign was explained by AlguyA as follows, in post #21:

"In the other case, the priest in question made a remark to two young men. Even the young men didn't consider it abuse, but they did tell their parents. When the parents reported it, the priest in question was moved to an administrative position in which, trust me, there was absolutely no way he would come into contact with kids."

Thus, your comment about why he might have a pool installed at his new home was out of line. It would have been out of line, even if Archbishop Myers had mishandled these cases, as it is one thing to misadminister cases of child abuse, it is entirely another thing to actually commit acts of child abuse, and to suggest that someone guilty of the former is also guilty of the latter is a low and base thing. However, that the abuse didn't occur during his reign, nor was it reported until after he left, makes your comments all the more egregious.

But, I'm sure now that the facts have been pointed out to you, you'll stop saying ugly, false things about a Catholic bishop of good reputation.

sitetest

http://www.herald-review.com/rednews/2002/04/24/build/Local_News/localnews2.php

"...So Koenigs didn't tell -- not when the priest's colleague also began molesting him, not while the abuse continued over the next three years, not when he broke off sexual relations with both priests at age 15 and not after he attempted suicide at 19.

He stayed silent until his abusers resigned from public ministry in 1993, after admitting they molested another teen-age boy in the 1970s. Koenigs went to the Catholic Diocese of Peoria -- which covers 26 counties in Central Illinois, including Piatt, DeWitt and Logan -- to report his experiences to then-Bishop John Myers.

Koenigs said Myers told him the two men would never again be active priests.

After undergoing the counseling the diocese offered, Koenigs said the nightmare receded for a while. Then a church employee tipped off Koenigs' mother last May that the diocese planned to reinstate their former priest on a substitute basis.

Her complaints caused the diocese, still led by Myers, to quickly withdraw the reinstatement."

http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/753510/posts

Myers' successor in Peoria, Bishop Daniel Jenky, removed seven priests for alleged abuse last May, and some parishioners said Myers had left the problem for Jenky. Cleveland and New Hampshire also have undergone extensive investigations of sex abuse...

"John Myers left a very messy situation in Peoria," McBrien added.

David Clohessy, national director for the Survivors Network for Those Abused by Priests, said it was wise to remove the bishops.

"It's simply a smart PR move when you have scores and scores of bishops from which to choose to take men like McCormack and Quinn and Myers out of the spotlight on the sexual abuse issue," Clohessy said. "Given what's come to light about (Myers') tenure in Peoria, I think it would be embarrassing were he to be reappointed."

It doesn't appear that his reputation is good in all quarters.

If you found my cynical wisecrack offensive, then I apologize to you for that. However, I think it's a little early to conclude that he did everything he should have done, or even, given the "reinstatement" business above, that he understands the necessity for laicizing priests who suffer from SSAD.

As for the pool...no. That offends me. I cannot imagine what would possess a bishop to have a pool put in at the bishop's residence. You clearly disagree, but that makes me very suspicious.