Greeley's Dirty Little Secret? [why hasn't he given this information to authorities?]

www.tcrnews.com ^ | Matt C. Abbott

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Greeley's Dirty Little Secret?

By Matt C. Abbott

When one mentions the name "Fr. Andrew Greeley" among faithful Catholics, one will almost certainly get one of three reactions: a cringe, a laugh, or the proverbial eye-roll. Or, one might get all three.

Greeley is most known for his disgusting "soft" porn novels and dissident rants. Oh, and lest I forget, his seemingly ardent support of pro-abortion Democrats.

Now, some give Greeley credit for his speaking out against the problem (now crisis) of pedophile/actively homosexual priests through the years. And he has. Consider the following column in the April 5 edition of the "Chicago Sun-Times":

"Why did so many American bishops think they could get away with stonewalling and cover-up tactics to protect abusive priests? They thought they could get away with it because they did get away with it for a long time. They had carved out for themselves an immunity not unlike that which canon law envisages in a country where there is a union of church and state.

"In many, if not most American cities with a large Catholic population, the criminal justice system ignored abusing priests; it was the church's problem. When a case did come to its attention, it almost never found a reason to prosecute. In some places it still doesn't.

"Usually, the parents of the victim would go to the church. At first they would be fended off. The priest absolutely denied the charge. He was a good priest. Their son had a vivid imagination. If this didn't work, a phalanx of higher-up priests descended on the family, accompanied by the church's expensive lawyers (who had the deep pockets of the church behind them). They offered the family a deal. They would give the family a certain amount of money (not very much) for medical costs and psychological counseling (based on how high the lawyers figured they had to go to keep the family quiet).

"They would send the priest to a psychiatric screening and then off to an institution. No one wanted a public lawsuit. That cost everyone a lot of money. If the parents would sign off on the deal, everything would be fine. Somehow the parents, whom one high-priced lawyer defined as ''the enemy,'' had become the bad guys. If they hired lawyers of their own and threatened suit, the church's lawyers would beat them into the ground by running up big legal bills. They would threaten countersuits.

"The media paid no attention. Families were torn apart, marriages were destroyed. The parents finally caved in and settled. Another victory for the church.

"The priest would be sent off somewhere, return in a few months and be approved for reassignment by the church's psychiatrists (although they might not have quite said that exactly). Then he would show up at a new parish without the pastor being warned of his past. Fellow priests would say, 'he really denies it strongly' and 'the cops and the shrinks cleared him.' That was that.

"It worked. It worked for a long time. Only when a few brave journalists began to report the stories did the whole game fall apart. Yet many dioceses continued to play it. They blamed all their trouble on the media.

"Thus in his pastoral letter, Cardinal Edward Egan does not admit that his lawyers beat up on families in Bridgeport, Conn., with the absurd argument that priests really didn't work for the church. Another hierarch, now apologizing profusely, does not admit that his lawyers are still pushing a countersuit against the victim's parents. They allege that the parents are responsible for the abuse because they didn't raise their son to be cautious of males who were too friendly.

"So confident were they that the system was still working that Cardinal Bernard Law did not even bother to destroy the documents on the case involving former priest John Geoghan (which he could legally have done before litigation began and easily, if illegally, after it had begun). It was unthinkable that the Boston Globe would ever spread his private files over its front pages.

"Not having the gift of reading hearts, I cannot say how sincere the various actors were in his familiar charade. I admit, however, that it would have taken a monumental ability at self-deception to carry it off in good faith.

"So are their abject apologies to be taken seriously? In most cases I would say that they seem phony to me, though they may be able to deceive themselves about their own sincerity, whatever of that quality might remain.

"I would begin to believe them if they took seriously their remaining moral responsibility to the families whom they crushed. I won't hold my breath until that happens.

"As for the recent implication of Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos that it is an American problem caused by our 'pan-sexualism' and his excuse that the pope is more worried about world peace than American victims of clerical abuse, he may be sincere too. Or rather, he may have convinced himself that he is sincere. He may be the next pope. If he is, folks, Katie, bar the door!"

Hmm. What courage. What straightforwardness. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Now, take a look at the following passage from Greeley's 1999 non-fiction book, "Furthermore! Memories of a Parish Priest" (p. 80):

"...But even in Chicago, the ring of predators about whom I wrote in the paperback edition of 'Confessions remains untouched. There is no evidence against them because no one has complained about them and none of their fellow Priests have denounced them. Those who have been removed are for the most part lone offenders who lacked the skill to cover their tracks. The ring is much more clever. Perhaps they always will be. But should they slip, should they get caught, the previous scandals will seem trivial...

A footnote says:

"They are a dangerous group. There is reason to believe that they are responsible for at least one murder, and may perhaps have been involved in the murder of the murderer. Am I afraid of them? Not particularly. They know that I have in safekeeping information which would implicate them. I am more of a threat to them dead than alive."

Now, if Greeley is telling the truth, and he ostensibly is so interested in justice, why on earth hasn't he given this information he has in "safekeeping" to the authorities?

This is a question that even Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago, seemingly can't answer. When Yours truly asked the Cardinal last year about Greeley's aforementioned allegation, the Cardinal responded that he did ask Greeley twice about it, and that all Greeley told him was to talk to two priests - the names of which Greeley apparently gave to him. (The Cardinal didn't say who they were, and, for obvious reasons, I didn't ask.) But no evidence was provided.

So, what gives? Does Fr. Andrew Greeley have a "dirty little secret"? I guess only time will tell.

[Orual]

My guess is that upon his death a massive expose memoir by Greeley will be published.

If your guess is correct, it indicates that he doesn't possess the fortitude to come forward with the information and face the reprecussions, and as others here have questioned: what is he waiting for?

[Palladin]

OK. Please read Eileen McNamara's editorial, which I posted. How can we expect Law, Egan, Mahoney, Keeler, and George to be a part of the solution when they are, to a great extent, the cause of the problem?

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

From The Washington Times: "90 percent of recorded abuse cases are from teen-age boys...One child psychiatrist in the District, who did not wish to be identified, criticized the American Psychiatric Assocation for 'prostituting themselves and getting politically correct.' He said the APA has downplayed the role of homosexuality in both pedophilia and ephebophilia. 'It's a lie' to disassociate homosexuality from sexual abuse of male minors, the doctor said in an interview."

Washington Times article: here

So the media, liberals, and some church leaders (like Monsignor McSweeney who has been appearing on Alan Keyes' show) have been peddling falsehoods in an orchestrated disinformation campaign to blame church teachings rather than homosexuality for the raging scandals. "90 Percent of recorded abuse cases are from teen-age boys..."

[FourtySeven]

I guess you don't really care to find out "the truth" either.

Not sure how you could jump to such an assinine conclusion. There are laity in the Church fighting tooth and nail behind the scenes to purge these SOB's from the priesthood.

First of all when I said, "I guess you don't really care to find out 'the truth' either" the "you" was refering to the author of this piece, not "you" in particular, just in case you took it that way.

Secondly, let's look at these two paragraphs (from Matt C. Abbot's article):

Now, if Greeley is telling the truth, and he ostensibly is so interested in justice, why on earth hasn't he given this information he has in "safekeeping" to the authorities?

From this paragraph, I think it's safe to assume that this person is criticizing Greeley for being a hypocrite, because Greeley seems to not really be interested in exposing the people he accused earlier of being murderers. By the way, I think that's a fair judgement! However....

This is a question that even Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago, seemingly can't answer. When Yours truly asked the Cardinal last year about Greeley's aforementioned allegation, the Cardinal responded that he did ask Greeley twice about it, and that all Greeley told him was to talk to two priests - the names of which Greeley apparently gave to him. (The Cardinal didn't say who they were, and, for obvious reasons, I didn't ask.) But no evidence was provided.

Now from this paragraph, we can see that Greeley told Cardinal George the two names, and, since nothing else has been done, investigation wise, we can assume that the buck stopped at the Cardinal.

Why didn't the cardinal investigate further?

Why didn't the author investigate further by asking the names, and investigating himself? What is that crap about "...for obvious reasons..."? WHAT obvious reasons? If you're so concerned about getting to the bottom of the mystery, and you criticize Greeley for preventing that, then why wouldn't you want to ask the names of the preists, and ask them yourself?

I'm only criticizing the apparent hypocricy on the author's part; I'm not supporting Fr. Greeley in any way.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

This article from The Washington Times should be entered into whatever official document the NCCB finally releases on the subject. I hope these facts are discussed with the Pope by the U.S. cardinals in Rome. Any further attempt by literate, sane, breathing adults to suppress or obscure the homosexual nature of the problem are clearly efforts of deliberate disinformation.

[SoothingDave]

Why didn't the author investigate further by asking the names, and investigating himself? What is that crap about "...for obvious reasons..."? WHAT obvious reasons? If you're so concerned about getting to the bottom of the mystery, and you criticize Greeley for preventing that, then why wouldn't you want to ask the names of the preists, and ask them yourself?

I think the "obvious reasons" (or one of them) is that there was no way in hell the Cardinal would have told him the names of the priests, even if he did ask.

SD

[webstersII]

why is it that everyone is piling on now like these are all new stories. How come nobody ever talks about all of the good things that hundreds of thousands of priests have done for all of us?

Let's see: Mussolini made the trains run on time. Hitler revived the German economy.

No amount of good could undo or cover up the evil that has been done by these priests who are supposedly men of God but yet are just a bunch of sick and twisted people. Until the Catholic church is ready to clean house of all this behavior there can be no resolution.

[FourtySeven]

I think the "obvious reasons" (or one of them) is that there was no way in hell the Cardinal would have told him the names of the priests, even if he did ask.

I suppose that's possible, but the point is the author didn't even try to ask. I think it's rather obvious what's going on here, the author has (rightly or wrongly) a dislike for Fr. Greeley, and is willing to use anything to smear him.

Again, I'm not defending Greeley, I don't even know anything about him. But I really detest people who write stuff about other people without at least attempting to be unbiased about it.

[syriacus]

I haven't liked Greeley in years. . He's seemed a little too charming, sophisticated, sly and "anti-Catholic Church."

I'll sum up my feelings by saying I think he would fit in really well at a Kennedy family dinner.

[syriacus]

Matt C. Abbott
Director of Public Affairs
Pro-Life Action League
Chicago

[Brian Kopp DPM]

I've talked to Matt, he's a good guy, we collaborated on a Wanderer article once a while back, AMERICA Magazine's Disinformation About Church's position on AIDS and Condom Use.

But he does seem to have a strong opinion against Greeley, one shared by many orthodox Catholics, incidentally.

As far as I'm concerned, Greeley is complicit in continued crimes for witholding this information from law enforcement. A priest should be willing to prevent the abuse of innocents even at the cost of personal sacrifice.

[syriacus]

As far as I'm concerned, Greeley is complicit in continued crimes for witholding this information from law enforcement.

If this story is true, I agree. It looks like Greeley took this tip from Pontius Pilate...

If you don't get what you ask for, then give up (and make sure to wash your hands).

[nickcarraway]

Of course, there's the possibility that Greeley is exagerating what he knows, and doesn't really know enough to report anyone. He like to be seen as ``in the know.''

[Brian Kopp DPM]

CATHOLIC WATCHDOG GROUP CALLS ON U.S. CARDINALS TO AFFIRM CHURCH TEACHING WHILE IN ROME

Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc. | April 17, 2002 | Stephen G. Brady

Posted on 4/17/02 5:17 PM Eastern by Dr. Brian Kopp

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 1 PM EDT, April 17, 2002

CATHOLIC WATCHDOG GROUP CALLS ON U.S. CARDINALS TO AFFIRM CHURCH TEACHING WHILE IN ROME

An international group of faithful Roman Catholics has contacted Vatican prelates and all active U.S. cardinals and asked them to publicly affirm the Church's 1961 pronouncement against admitting homosexuals or pedophiles to the priesthood.

Stephen G. Brady, the president of Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc. (RCF) issued a statement on Wednesday that was directed to 8 active U.S. cardinals as well as a number of additional American and Vatican prelates. The American cardinals include Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, Francis George of Chicago, Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., William Keeler of Baltimore, Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia, Edward Egan of New York City, Adam Maida of Detroit, and the currently embattled Bernard Law of Boston. They will be traveling to Rome next week with National Conference of Catholic Bishops president Bishop Wilton Gregory and others at the summons of the Holy Father. They will be participating in closed-door meetings with Vatican representatives to address the scandal and damage the Church in America is undergoing due to an increasing number of sexual abuse cases coming to light. A number of prelates have been accused of protecting abusive priests and moving them to other areas, where they have repeated their predatory acts with new victims. An overwhelming number of offenses have involved homosexual acts.

"As a measure of their sincerity in addressing this horrible crisis inflicting so much damage on the souls of the innocent," Brady charged, "we challenge each and every one of these princes of the Church to sign a statement agreeing they will follow the direction of a letter issued by the Sacred Congregation for Religious in Rome." Brady is asking each prelate to affirm the following declaration: "I, ________ Cardinal ________, hereby agree to follow the direction of the letter issued by the Sacred Congregation for Religious in Rome in 1961, which states: 'Those affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty should be excluded from religious vows and ordination'". The Church directive has never been rescinded and is still officially in force.

"If a cardinal is not willing to sign this document," Brady stated, "then there is no point in his traveling to Rome. Moreover, if he travels to Rome and doesn't sign it, I wish he'd do us a favor and just stay there."

Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc. (RCF) is a not-for-profit lay organization, with many religious members, dedicated to promoting orthodox Catholic teaching and fighting heterodoxy and corruption within the Catholic hierarchy.

ROMAN CATHOLIC FAITHFUL, INC.
P.O. Box 109
Petersburg, IL 62675
Phone 217-632-5920
Fax 217-632-7054
Web www.rcf.org

Press Release

Contact: Stephen G. Brady
Phone: (217) 632-5920

---

[ Report Abuse | Bookmark Discussion ]

---

From NRO Online The Corner:

BEST NEWS I'VE HEARD ALL DAY: [Rod Dreher] Michael Rose, author of Goodbye, Good Men, the blockbuster expose of homosexuality and heresy in American seminaries, e-mails to say he just filled an order from a Polish monsignor in the Vatican, who ordered four copies and promised to do his best to get a copy into the Holy Father's hands before the pontiff meets next week with the American cardinals. You go, Monsignor! If John Paul reads only chapter four, "The Gay Subculture," he will meet the cardinals with fire blazing in his eyes. In other good news, Regnery Publishing has bought rights to Goodbye, Good Men, which is now out only in paperback, and will be rushing a hardcover edition into stores next month. Regnery's involvement means this extremely important book will get huge distribution and exposure. Posted 1:50 PM | [Link]

1 posted on 4/17/02 5:17 PM Eastern by Dr. Brian Kopp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse ]