Replies

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

I'm not going to get into this kind of a peeing contest with you, either. I'm going to address just a few things, then turn in.

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

I did better than that. I provided the links.

"you have left the impression that all was to be forgiven, and the priest would just sort of get back to normal."

The section of the article I posted contains the words, "on a substitute basis."

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

Myers should have done that from day one. How could he even think of reinstating a priest who had molested a young teenager? Looks to me like he got away with what he could while he could.

"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"

Nonsense. The portion of the article I posted contained the dates.

"and after the statute of limitations had run"

Oh, really? What's the statute of limitations on defrocking?

"and that it was Bishop Myers who disciplined the priest, and removed him from active ministry."

And you consider that adequate, in light of the 1961 prohibition on ordaining SSAD sufferers?

"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"

I am aghast that he did not have that priest defrocked. That he would even in a nightmare consider allowing him to celebrate Mass is an abomination.

"also, after reflecting on Koenigs' protest, stopped even that."

After somebody blew the whistle on him, you mean.

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

Only after he realized he wasn't going to get away with protecting them any more.

"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."

You don't think seven homosexual priests is a mess? Amazing.

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

What do you mean, "left Peoria?" The article I posted said that Koenigs went to him while he still had the diocese. You yourself pointed out that Myers changed the policy when Mrs. Koenigs raised a fuss.

"And it was pointed out to you. Yet you chose to repeat already-discredited calumny."

The only thing you've discredited here is your own objectivity.

"AlguyA has provided actual information, actual facts, which clears Archbishop Myers in these cases."

Buncombe. Myers had a diocese with seven priests that needed to be fired--eight if you count the and one that he tried to ease back into active service--and he utterly failed to deal with it.

"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?"

I don't intend to make Archbishop Myers my life's work, but when you put together his treatment of the one known molester, his failure (apparently even to try) to weed out others, and the bizzaro behavior of putting in a swimming pool, a person is entitled to go "hmmmm."

"It was contemptible."

I withdraw my apology, with regret at having wasted it on such a sorry specimen of humanity.

"the evidence also shows that he got the message on reinstatement."

Looks to me like he had the whistle blown on him, read the prevailing winds, and took cover.

"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"

Yes, it is, but home swimming pools are intrinsically sybaritic. Expensive to build, expensive to maintain, and private--in the worst sense of the word.

I would expect a priest to build a pool that many could use, and take the bit of extra trouble to use it himself...unless he had some reason to want that privacy.

"To put a very nice pool in the backyard will run about $20,000 - $50,000."

$50,000 is well above the median annual income. How much more bang for the buck would the Church have gotten if he'd raised a little more and put in a Catholic youth center with a pool?

"Though the latter reading is grammatically more likely, the former reading is more charitable toward you."

Actually, while the latter reading is grammatically possible, only the former reading makes any sense at all.

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

Perhaps. Lack of charity is a sin I often commit. I've been sitting here trying to think up a scenario in which that pool isn't suspicious, especially in light of his treatment of a known molester and apparent lack of zeal in identifying others...and I just can't come up with one.

Since my knees went bad, I have used pools of various sizes for lap swimming, and IMO for any kind of efficient exercise, you need at least 25 meters of length. Ever seen a 25-meter pool in a back yard?