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.
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."
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.
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.