Earlier this week Father Thomas Euteneuer made a confession
to a sexual indiscretion during an exorcism.
The confession has rocked
the Catholic Church and the anti-abortion movement.
The Priest had once
been an up and coming "rock star" in the Catholic Church and a
"superstar" of the international pro-life movement as President of Human
Life International.
A secret scandal in August forced Euteneuer to quietly resign his positions of authority and take a low profile in the church.
Until last week, when one of Euteneuer's "exorcism" victims was rushed to a Florida emergency room.
At that time the scandal broke wide open, and Euteneuer was forced into making a public confession.
The former superstar of the international pro-life movement, and
exorcist for the Catholic Church, has now confessed to sexually abusing
at least one woman under his spiritual care.
The scandal had been shrouded in secrecy, leaving only rumors and innuendo
as concerned members of the Catholic Church and the pro-life movement
tried to find answers for Euteneuer's disappearance from the public
stage.
There should be no surprise
that the church and Euteneuer tried to make the rumors and allegations
of misconduct go away.
This is standard operating procedure for the Catholic Church. And for six months they were able to maintain their conspiracy of silence.
Yet Euteneuer's controversial confession yields more questions than answers.
This is standard operating procedure for the Catholic Church. And for six months they were able to maintain their conspiracy of silence.
Yet Euteneuer's controversial confession yields more questions than answers.
My violations of chastity were limited to one person only, an adult woman;
The violations of chastity happened due to human weakness but did not involve the sexual act;
The accusation that I “targeted” vulnerable women or otherwise sought them out for spiritual direction is utterly false and a serious defamation of my character and ministry;
The entire confession rings hollow, and defensive. The fact that he
denies his "violation of chastity" did not "involve the sexual act"
seems counter intuitive.
How can a violation of chastity not involve a
sexual act?
Also, the fact that his victim was under his spiritual care, and deemed to be possessed by demons, lends little credibility to the claim that he did not target vulnerable women.
Also, the fact that his victim was under his spiritual care, and deemed to be possessed by demons, lends little credibility to the claim that he did not target vulnerable women.
No doubt their is more to the story. Whether or not more details will surface, remains a mystery.