Excerpts of Statement of Fr. Thomas Euteneuer regarding his departure from HLI and the recent speculation.
Statement of Fr. Thomas Euteneuer: setting the record straight
January 31, 2011
It is with great sadness, but also with a certain measure of relief, that I can now respond to the many inquiries about my departure as president of Human Life International (HLI) at the end of August 2010. It has been painful for me to remain silent in light of the ongoing speculation, particularly when much of it assigned blame to those who were, in fact, blameless. I am thankful to be able to set the record straight so that speculation can stop and blame can be placed right where it belongs – with me.
Father then describes some of the more outlandish accusations against him that have been offered by some on the internet. He then goes on to say…
While I would otherwise willingly suffer calumnies in silence to atone for my sins, and knowing how pointless it is to respond to every crackpot with a website, I cannot remain silent when such falsehoods threaten to damage the Church, the priesthood, and other innocent persons and organizations that are or have been linked to me. I therefore affirm and will never deviate from my affirmation that the following are true:
- 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;
- With rare exceptions, my exorcism/prayer ministry was always conducted with prayer helpers (third parties) present; situations where prayer or pastoral care occurred without helpers present were exceptional situations where I believed it was necessary for me to act quickly in order to help the afflicted person; while not proper protocol, these departures from the norm were never done with a motive to be alone with vulnerable women;
- I repudiate any allegations of financial impropriety in conducting my prayer/exorcism ministry; I never, under any circumstances, solicited money for the ministry other than travel-related reimbursements, nor did I use HLI donor funds to carry out this work; any gifts offered to me were unsolicited and only accepted so as not to offend the giver and in most cases immediately given to those more needy than myself;
- I have no knowledge of any persons who received any financial settlement in this matter, nor have I asked for that to be given.
Read the statement in its entirety here.
Post amended out of unrequited courtesy to LifeSiteNews
**Note: The comment box will be closely monitored, please remain civil and respectful.
February 2, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Oh boy, so unfortunate. Let's keep in mind that these are allegations and hopefully the additional ones are untrue. I don't know how the diocese could have allowed him access to female victims of alleged possession without some kind of aide present at all times. It just seems too dangerous a ministry to ever allow the priest, especially one who is 48, to be alone with women. it is well known from case histories of exorcisms that the possessing spirits prey on mankind's weakness for lust.
February 2, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Yikes. With so many Diocese's already going bankrupt from law suits. This is not good. I will pray for everyone involved. The Diocese of Wilmington, DE is now going bankrupt because of a pedophile case, and the lawyers are now going after individual parishes so the people may lose their churches if they are forced to sell the land. This kind of conduct, has to stop. Hopefully the other allegations are not true, but, sigh, I am afraid for the church. I know there are a lot of false allegations too. Wow, is all I have to say.
February 2, 2011 at 10:40 pm
I guess "lustful thoughts" weren't the issue since he was reported, no one could read his mind, so he obviously did something external. The poor woman.
February 2, 2011 at 11:11 pm
"HLI received certain assurances that Rev. Euteneuer was no longer engaged in public ministry and therefore, until this time, in our efforts to observe Catholic teaching, we have avoided comment (beyond our original statement). This decision was based on all the teachings of the Church but in particular the Catechism’s instructions as follows:
“Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2489. Emphasis in the original.)
Although it is for the Diocese of Palm Beach and the proper ecclesiastical authorities to address the matters referenced in Rev. Euteneuer’s statement, we ask that the HLI family continue to pray for all those involved. HLI has not been, and will not be, deterred in its fundamental mission as pro-life missionaries to the world, and we likewise ask for the prayers of all that support HLI’s work that this critical mission will never be undermined."
To complete the statement by HLI that was partly posted above.
February 3, 2011 at 3:21 am
We don't really know anything outside of the original confession. There are those who would jump on the bandwagon to falsely accuse as well. We have no idea if any of these additional accusations are true or something the devil is having fun with. So…I'm counting it as rubbish until further proof is offered.
If Father E said that there was no sexual act…I believe him. His indiscretions could have been lustful kisses. That would have broken his vows.
I think that some of you folks are getting too wound up in this.
February 3, 2011 at 3:25 am
See, now the problem I have with the Catechism section 2489 is that the discretion is subjective. If the pedophile priest is molesting children, it should be made known and not covered up to avoid scandal, yet sadly that is what was done for years. If Father E was inappropriate in his exorcism ministry, that should be known as well for the safety of the women he was working with. That statement should not be used as a poor excuse for a coverup. I love my church, and I know that there are many many good priests, but this kind of stuff makes it hard to defend when things of this nature are covered up. There are victims here, and it is not the priest. As someone who has been the victim of sexual assault, nothing makes me get all bunched up more then people helping the perpatrator to cover it up.
February 3, 2011 at 3:53 am
See, I don't know if I believe him because, again, he didn't turn himself in, it was only after he was caught that he apologized. And as others have pointed out, the letter seems off. And some of us get wound up because we have personal experience that makes it emotional. I agree that there are those that can falsely accuse, but there are those that are true victims and some are so busy defending the indescretion of the priest they forget about the victim. Do I believe Father needs prayers and forgiveness, yes, but I also believe when you are in a public ministry you need to adhere to a high moral standard because people are following you. Matthew 18:5-6 says, “And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”
February 3, 2011 at 11:58 am
I had initial concerns way back when he seemed too open about his exorcist status. to trumpet it. It didn't sound right to me. And he was also, relatively, very young to be the go to guy for that.
February 3, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Fr. E has admitted to failing to maintain his vow of chastity with one adult woman, but did not have sex with her.
There are two claims contained in there:
CLAIM #1: There was only one woman with whom he acted inappropriately.
CLAIM #2: Sex was not the transgression.
The truth of claim 1 will be determined in time. Until and unless it is proven false, it is best to treat the statement as true, while at the same time investigating credible allegations.
The truth of claim 2 is none of my business. I can think of numerous ways one can act in an unchaste way that doesn't involve sex. Unchaste physical intimacy doesn't have to involved reproductive organs (although that's the most clear example).
HLI has received additional allegations of misconduct, which it forwarded on to appropriate authorities. This seems reasonable, since HLI is not investigating things. Allegations are not proven, and should not be treated as fact. They should be investigated if credible. It looks to me like that is in process.
Some refuse to admit the possibility that Fr. E is lying, and come to his defense no matter what. They dismiss any allegation as completely untrue. Fr. E may have sinned, they say, but he's come clean and all other claims must be false.
Others refuse to allow for the possibility that Fr. E is telling the truth, and latch on to any allegation as if they were already determined to be true. Fr. E is not only guilty of the sin he admitted to, he is also surely guilty of every other allegation that arises.
One side acknowledges the sin but buries its head in the sand with regards to other possible sins, refusing to believe any other allegations. The other side, seeing admission of one sin, convicts him of all accusations. Neither of those positions really helps the situation.
I'm in neither camp. I hope that Fr. E has been truthful, but believe that other allegations should be investigated. In my mind, he is innocent until proven guilty, but under suspicion. Not that my opinion about his guilt or innocence matters a hill of beans. But it looks like the right steps have been taken: he has been removed from public ministry while the investigation continues. People are protected from any further risk (if really does pose a risk), and the validity of accusations can be determined in due course. If he were a doctor, we'd say his license was suspended, pending review, and the investigation is ongoing. He is neither exonerated nor convicted, but presumed innocent.
We have to accept that it takes time to make the determinations, and can't jump to conclusions either way.
February 3, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Matthew Sekierski,
Yours is the best comment I have seen on this entire sad situation. Thank you.
February 3, 2011 at 9:01 pm
Matthew's are often the best comments:-). Thanks, Matthew.
February 3, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Good I see coming out of this is that Fr. Euteneuer's situation and response offers a nice contrast to that of Fr. Cutie, who sulked like a child, blamed the Church for what he did, and now is trying to cash in on the experience with his own book and talk show.
February 4, 2011 at 4:29 am
At least it wasn't with a man. I only get concerned when it's a sin dealing with two men.
February 4, 2011 at 3:11 pm
No it's terrible. Sexual misconduct in the course of ministry. That's like a doctor coming on to a vulnerable patient.
February 5, 2011 at 3:36 am
Satan's team out in full force on this blog. Gangstas – Can't believe some of you are trying to make him out to be saint vis-a-vis Cutie. Fr. Euteneuer took advantage of at least one woman WITH WHOM HE WAS MINISTERING TO IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SACRED RITUAL OF EXORCISM. That's enough for him to fry in hell.
February 5, 2011 at 6:20 am
Excuse me Fr Smyth, how do you know that he came onto her during an exorcism?
How do you know that she didn't come onto him? There are lots of lonely women who will do that. I think it makes a difference whether he preyed on her, or if he caved in to her.
Also, just because it wasn't intercourse, everyone straight away assumes it must have been oral sex. COME ON PEOPLE! There is a sin called RASH JUDGEMENT. They could have just passionately kissed for a bit or anything in between.
Lastly, even if it was a "Clintonesque" encounter, maybe no one came onto anyone, maybe it just happened. Affairs happen like this all the time.
February 5, 2011 at 12:56 pm
For any victims of Fr. E who are reading this thread, I apologize on behalf of the many who are sick and saddened by the Catholics who have poured salt into your wounds with their defense of the indefensible.
Please ignore their circuses at the base of Mt. Sinai. They know not what they do and in many ways, they are victims of the personality cults that draw in people whose faith is weak.
It is a scandal and we are praying that this darkness does not obscure the Light of Christ in the Sacraments of His Church.
February 6, 2011 at 3:51 am
Thanks God, Fr. Euteneur is a REPENTED SINNER and not a "cute false priest" who was so proud of being confirmed in his sin.
Fr. Tom, my prayers, novenas, and penance for you, God will receive them and forgive you an make you anew. Thank you for not being "confused," you know the MERCY OF GOD.
May Mary keep you and crush the head of satan, which is behind all priests.
February 6, 2011 at 4:02 am
Fr. Smyth,
CONGRATULATIONS, YOU'LL ALSO BE COOKING IN HELL if didn't repent soon.
Are you a Catholic priest? I don't think so! Sounds like a satan's priest.
Read St. Faustine and the mercy of Christ -for you too is available!
February 7, 2011 at 12:06 am
New HLI head says Father E "gravely harmed woman."
http://www.hli.org/index.php/component/acajoom/?act=mailing&task=view&listid=2&mailingid=751