Priest (Fr. Benedict Groeschel) plays down abuse crisis; helps clergy keep jobs

Well, I did a little googling, and voila: the author of the article is, in fact, chairman of the Texas chapter of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists.

Whatever mistakes Fr. Groeschel made in the specific cases cited, he is absolutely right when he says that the chief problem is "active homosexuality with minors."

Bravo, well done B Knotts!

This is the bottom line, Sink.

If you had a shred of decency, you'd ask the mods to pull this homo anti-Catholic hit piece.

Funny how some lambasted Michael Rose for not interviewing the rectors of the seminaries he was writing about and the author of the article posted here has done the same thing.

Perhaps you missed this, colleen:

Father Groeschel, who declined interview requests, has not said publicly how many of his clients were accused of abuse.

Unlike the rectors of the seminaries, whom Rose never asked, Groeschel was asked, and refused comment.

You can call the article "trash" if you wish. But you cannot refute Groeschel's complicity in returning men to the priesthood who had been abusers. You also cannot refute that one of the victims was verbally accosted by Groeschel and told "what you are doing to this man is wrong."

If Egerton's wrong, or is engaged in a smear, there is one man who can clear things up and whom I would believe over the author.

Let's see if he'll come forward.

You're shameless, Sink.

I really thought you above this kind of thing, at least after the agenda of the author has been revealed.

Swallow your pride and admit your article is a gay agenda driven hit piece to which Groeschel has to obligation no respond, OK?

Its too easy to see through this, now that the other pieces of the puzzle are revealed.

This is the bottom line, Sink.

What's the bottom line? That the abusers are homosexual men preying on adolescents?

If that's the case, then why did Groeschel recommend that they be returned to the ministry, some in ministry involving young men? Did Groeschel not recognize that these men were active homosexuals? If he didn't, what kind of psychologist is he?

If you had a shred of decency, you'd ask the mods to pull this homo anti-Catholic hit piece.

I have decency. That's why I want all the pus to be drained from this boil. Groeschel is a psychologist who was complicit in returning men to the priesthood who didn't belong there. He also made this recommendation to clueless prelates like Bernard Law, and, as a result, Law is doing penance today because he listened to "experts" like Groeschel.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, Dr. Surely, in your line of work, you know that.

I was never blaming the media for the scandal. In fact, I agree, the media was doing its responsibilty when it revealed the scandal to the world. It is the fault of the individual priests and the bishops who covered for them. What I do accuse the media of is going beyond responsibility and collaborating with the forces who are trying to undermine the Church. You cannot deny the slant of the media in favor of sodomites, enemies of the traditional family, and abortion.

What ought to be beneath you is the sexual orientation of the author.

This isn't about his "sexual orientation"; it is about the fact that this guy has an obvious agenda, as the chair of a pro-homosexuality organization. I take his denunciations of Fr. Groeschel with a grain of salt.

Yes, there has been unspeakable evil done to many people, but the answer is not to abandon moral teaching; the answer is to finally embrace it, to the degree possible, given our sinful natures. I'm guessing the author has a, shall we say, different perspective on that idea, though.

He has written countless articles about this scandal, especially on priests in the Dallas Diocese.

Oh, yeah...I reckon he has. I wonder about his motivation, and about his fairness and accuracy. Would you accept unquestionably an article about Saddam, written by a Frenchman?

What I do accuse the media of is going beyond responsibility and collaborating with the forces who are trying to undermine the Church. You cannot deny the slant of the media in favor of sodomites, enemies of the traditional family, and abortion.

What you say is beside the point. What I want to know is, if these priests were homosexual men preying on young men, why did Groeschel recommend they be returned to the ministry?

Either he recognized they were, and covered for them, or he didn't, which means he's not much of a "psychologist."

At this point, I'm prepared to believe either one.

You're right. I would expect an open homosexual to advocate homosexuality.

But I would not expect a priest who rails against homosexuality to cooperate in returning actively homosexual priests to the ministry.

Can you confirm with other sources, other than this specific journalist or newspaper, that Fr. Groeschel did indeed make this recommendations? If not, all you're doing is forwarding the writings of a journalist with a questionable background. From all that I've seen and heard, Fr. Benedict has done A LOT more good than harm. If this is true, it is an obvious error on his part. I hope this doesn't lead to an accusation that Fr. Groeschel is a collaborator with the gay "Mafia" in religious circles, because that will just be jumping the conclusions.

Lots and lots of cover-up still goin' on.

Nah. Hit piece. I bet not many gays like "The Courage to be Chaste" written by Fr. Benedict Groeschel and would like the opportunity to impugn his motives.

It turns out that Groeschel doesn't even have the requisite license to practice as a "counseling psychologist" in New York.

It's amazing that you'll depend on one throw away line in a newspaper article to believe the worst about someone who is a man of God.

Fr. Groeschel has a doctorate in psychology from Columbia. Whaddya think he's been doing for the past 30 years? Posing?

It's not about the "journalist." Groeschel can clear all this up in short order. Deny or confirm the statements and accusations made in this article, and the other one, which lists three priests, all counseled by Groeschel, who were returned to ministry and abused other young people.

Call the Diocese of Paterson. Ask for Ms. Thompson. Ask her if the statements made in this article are true, or not. In fact, I might do that tomorrow myself.

Should I not believe what Bob Woodward writes because he once screwed around on his wife? To make this about Brooks Egerton is an attempt to change the subject.

Fr. Groeschel has a doctorate in psychology from Columbia. Whaddya think he's been doing for the past 30 years? Posing?

Either he has a license to practice as a "counseling psychologist," or he doesn't.

The prosecutor in the article above thinks it's significant. I'd hardly call that a "throw-away" line.

OK. Groeschel writes against homosexuality. Why did he recommend that actively homosexual men be returned to priestly ministry? Or did he not recognize them as such?

Call the Diocese of Paterson. Ask for Ms. Thompson. Ask her if the statements made in this article are true, or not. In fact, I might do that tomorrow myself.

I'm glad you're taking this step. Tell us what happens. Otherwise, it's grossly unfair to Fr. Benedict to characterize him in this way. I agree with Polycarp, he has not obligation to respond to charges from this journalist (though he may want to discern about making a statement in the future).

Nah. Hit piece. I bet not many gays like "The Courage to be Chaste" written by Fr. Benedict Groeschel and would like the opportunity to impugn his motives.

How is Egerton "impugning" Groeschel's motives? What are Groeschel's motives?

Why would a priest who is so outspoken against homosexuality participate in returning men to ministry who have an opportunity to prey on young men again?

Did Groeschel think he had cured these men of their homosexual tendencies?

I agree with Polycarp, he has not obligation to respond to charges from this journalist (though he may want to discern about making a statement in the future).

Nobody has an obligation to respond to any charges made in the media as long as they are willing to live with the consequences of that silence.

Unlike the rectors of the seminaries, whom Rose never asked, Groeschel was asked, and refused comment.

Read that part again... the author doesn't say the interview requests came from him or the newspaper he writes for. Kind of a weird omission.

I'm not refuting that Fr. G may have returned men who had been abusers to the priesthood - he says as much in the quote I posted and also the article you posted here. It seems to me, from wide reading on this subject, that there were very few men barred from returning to their former way of life (including priests, teachers, parents, etc) after counciling and treatment by ALL psychologists... religious and secular. It was understood that the abusers could be treated and cured until very recently.

And do we know what the victim was doing to the priest? I'd like to know more about that story. For instance, he could have been unrelenting in his condemnation of his abuser or he could have been threatening to kill him... one thing is wrong and the other is not.

Hey, Father Groeschel isn't perfect, but he is trying to do the right thing as best he can. He has been a shining light for most of us. This article is a hit piece.

Hey, Father Groeschel isn't perfect, but he is trying to do the right thing as best he can. He has been a shining light for most of us. This article is a hit piece.

AMEN! Do you know how that is obvious from the article itself? Look at these lines.

The very first line:In the world according to Father Benedict Groeschel, the Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandal is largely the stuff of fiction.
Sorry, he never said that.

He prescribed a return to conservative moral teachings, saying that nothing would restore confidence in church leadership "better than a firm stance against pornography, extramarital sex, abortion, euthanasia and the general moral decline of the United States. ... Tough topics like contraception and autoeroticism need to be consistently and publicly addressed."
Very true, but in context of the rest of this article, why did this need to be mentioned, unless to "out" him as a "closeminded" conservative.

I like this article about as much as a dose of haemorrhoids (sp?), but I think sink has a point here.

The only reason that gay agitprops and the rest are able to attack the Church so liberally at this present time is that grave perversions have taken hold in the priesthood and I am certain that the scandals will take their toll of many more "good" men before this is sorted.

While the number of sex-offenders may be relatively small, the numbers involved in the collusion and cover-up have been massive, and in some respects this is the far greater perversion. I can't remember if it was Leo XIII or St Pius X who warned of the consequences for the Church when "good" men stand back and do nothing.

The see-no-evil, speak-no-evil, hear-no-evil culture of clericalism that liberal and conservative clergy alike are immersed in, has allowed no end of depravity to take place while the priests and the Levites have passed by on the other side.

The greater instinctive loyalty among the conservative clergy, as well as fear of ostracism, will have allowed many of them to be sucked in, at least to the point of erring on the side of generosity.

Psychology is at best an inexact science, if indeed it is really a science at all, and its quite likely that Groeschel has screwed up a few times. He has admitted as much in the above post by Colleen, and why not? - he is not infallible after all.

He would come out of it with more integrity if he just admitted to making some bad mistakes in these instances, or challenge the reporters to give some proof if they are lying.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.