Replies

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.

Dear dsc,

If you are going to cut and paste, you should at least try to provide the more important details.

Regarding the "reinstatement" of a priest who molested Mr. Koenigs, you have left the impression that all was to be forgiven, and the priest would just sort of get back to normal. Actually, after nine years of suspension for the priest, here is what really transpired:

"Koenigs confided in his wife, went to Bishop Myers in October of that year and underwent several months of counseling. Engels and Harbert had already resigned, and Koenigs did not consider a lawsuit for the same reason the two priests were never convicted of a crime -- the statute of limitations had expired. 'I went on with my life for a while,' he said.

Then last May, Dianna Olson, secretary of St. Francis of Assisi Roman Catholic Church in Kewanee, told Koenigs' mother Theresa, a custodian at the church, the diocese was going to allow Engels to say Mass on an emergency basis. 'I thought she deserved to know,' Olson said.

"Kate Kenny, Diocese of Peoria director of communications, confirmed the diocese dropped the idea of reinstating Engels to limited ministry after the family complained.

"'Since then our sexual abuse policy has been revised so that no one removed from priestly ministry can be reinstated,' Kenny said."

Of course, you have left out the part that the abuse happened long before Bishop Myers became bishop of Peoria, that the case was reported to Bishop Myers years after it happened and after the statute of limitations had run, and that it was Bishop Myers who disciplined the priest, and removed him from active ministry. And it was Bishop Myers, who, when he thought to have the priest perform very limited ministerial functions (limited to saying Mass only when there was no other priest to say it) after nine years of suspension, also, after reflecting on Koenigs' protest, stopped even that.

And, it was under Bishop Myers that the policy was changed, to forbid abusing priests from ever being reinstated to active ministry.

Regarding your second link, you say:

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

Well, I read the link, an old FR thread repeating some gossip reported in a local NJ newsrag, and I gotta ask, where's the beef?

A few liberal Catholics, including the infamous Fr. Richard McBrien of Notre Dame, say he left "a mess", regarding the seven priests cited by AlguyA in this thread, for the next bishop. But no evidence is offered of that. The new bishop is not quoted as having said this. In fact, the new bishop isn't even quoted, and there is no evidence in the article that anyone even asked Archbishop Myers' successor, Bishop Jenky, about the whole thing. That's really good journalism! Not.

The closest thing to a fact in the entire piece of garbage is: "...some parishioners said Myers had left the problem for Jenky."

Well, as AlguyA has pointed out IN THIS THREAD, the accusers DIDN'T EVEN COME FORTH UNTIL AFTER BISHOP MYERS LEFT PEORIA.

No, there is no evidence in this ort of gossip. None. No details are provided. It is nothing other than gossip, and now you have repeated it. And the evidence against this calumny was already in this thread, thanks to AlguyA. And it was pointed out to you.

Yet you chose to repeat already-discredited calumny.

Good going.

AlguyA has provided actual information, actual facts, which clears Archbishop Myers in these cases. So, let's weigh things out: evidence of right behavior versus gossip by those with an agenda and an axe to grind.

This isn't a hard call, dsc.

Until you actually have some real evidence, some actual facts, to show that Archbishop Myers did wrong in Peoria, could you please stop spewing calumny against the man?

"If you found my cynical wisecrack offensive, then I apologize to you for that."

For your calumny, you owe Archbishop Myers and all devout Catholics here an apology. It was contemptible.

"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."

Well, the evidence from your links shows that he has done much more than most bishops, and the evidence also shows that he got the message on reinstatement. He reflected on the protests of an abuse victim, took the man's words to heart, and changed diocesan policy as a result. I'm sorry you have a problem with that.

"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."

Why? This one, I don't understand. It may be that swimming is part of his daily exercise regimen. Swimming is an excellent form of exercise, especially for older folks. Bishops are often busy folks. It may be that he knows that he is unlikely to take the time to swim unless he has a pool nearby.

I'm appreciative of priests and bishops who take a little care for themselves. Their vocations are demanding, spiritually, psychologically, and physically. To put a very nice pool in the backyard will run about $20,000 - $50,000. If this helps an archbishop stay healthy and have more energy and stamina to serve God, then it is a very small price. It amounts to a drop in the ocean, in terms of costs, relative to the income of the Archdiocese of Newark. But the return on investment is likely quite high. Especially if it helps a bishop known for his orthodoxy and otherwise good reputation, the calumnies of heterodox liberal theologians notwithstanding.

"You clearly disagree, but that makes me very suspicious."

I interpret this remark in that you are made suspicious of the archbishop by the acquisition of the pool, not that you are suspicious of me for disagreeing with you. Though the latter reading is grammatically more likely, the former reading is more charitable toward you.

Yet, regrettably, it shows your own lack of charity toward the archbishop.

sitetest