**TheMediaReport.com Follow-Up** Even More Questions Raised About McCarrick Accuser James Grein

James Grein : Cardinal McCarrick accuser

Question: Why should we believe Cardinal McCarrick accuser James Grein?

Contrary to what some readers may believe, we at TheMediaReport.com generally believe most accusations against priests until we see reason to question them.

And in the case of the accuser of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick – who has now publicly identified himself as Virginia resident James Grein – a number of additional contradictions and dubious claims by Grein have led us yet again to challenge what this accuser has claimed about being abused by McCarrick many decades ago.

We initially raised a host of serious questions about Grein's accusations after he came forward last summer. [See: "Cardinal McCarrick Accuser's Claims Raise Questions," 20 July 2018.]

What's this now? Abused during Confession?

Just last week, according to news reports and Grein's contingency lawyer, Patrick Noaker, Grein testified in front of a judicial vicar of the Archdiocese of New York and claimed that McCarrick had repeatedly "touched James' genitals as part of the confessional." As reported in the Times:

"He touched James' genitals as part of the confessional. That became the course, it happened almost every time," Noaker said. McCarrick would absolve Grein and "touch him on the forehead, shoulder, chest and genitals."

James Grein : Cardinal McCarrick accuser

Cardinal McCarrick accuser
James Grein

What is startling about this accusation is not so much the claim itself but the fact that Grein had never mentioned this before in any of the numerous interviews he has given since making his initial claims of abuse. Not once.

Last summer, Grein spoke with the New York Times, the Associated Press, and ex-Catholic-turned-Orthodox blogger Rod Dreher. And in the weeks leading up to his testimony last week, Grein granted lengthy interviews with Catholic outlets, including a 1-hour, 42-minute marathon with Dr. Taylor Marshall and a 38-minute sit-down with EWTN.

But Grein mentioned nothing about being sexually abused "almost every time" as part of the Sacrament of Confession – something one would think he would definitely want to mention when speaking to Catholic media.

Two different tales?

Grein also made an additional number of eye-opening claims and contradictions in his recent interviews. Grein has even made contradictory statements over whether he was even sexually abused at all. In his November 20 interview with EWTN, Grein clearly stated:

"I didn't see him every day, but every day I saw him, he abused me."

Yet a couple weeks later, Grein opened his interview with Taylor Marshall with the line:

"I'm James Grein, who, uh, had a pretty good childhood. Now I have, uh, a really great life."

And then telling Marshall about various trips that he had taken with McCarrick years ago, Grein said:

"While he was not really sexually abusing me, he was making me sleep with him, so if I didn't sleep with him, he was going to tell on me."

See the contradictions? Who would say they had a "pretty good childhood" when a man was sexually abusing him every time he saw him? But, then again, maybe McCarrick was "not really sexually abusing" him?

He said what?

We have many other questions about Grein's claims of abuse at the hands of McCarrick (as well as questions about his 1991 stint in Boston at a halfway house).

But there are claims from Grein in his interviews that have nothing to do with abuse and left us scratching our heads. For example, Grein told Taylor Marshall:

"My grandfather invented the bra and girdle."

Grein explained that his grandfather was from the Swiss town of St. Gallen, but our research shows nothing about the bra and girdle having Swiss origins. Rather, the first modern bra was invented and patented by a woman in France in 1889.

And while trying to portray McCarrick as an all-powerful individual whose reputation was incapable of being besmirched, Grein also told Marshall another weird one:

"[Cardinal] McCarrick was part of the Department of Justice from the Clinton presidency through second year of Obama."

Well, no, he wasn't.

We continue to invite you to investigate this unusual story of alleged abuse for yourself and reach your own conclusions.

In the end, it again seems apparent that James Grein and Cardinal McCarrick knew each other at one point for a very long time. However, as far as any abuse occurring – or not occurring – only James and McCarrick know the truth. Not the New York Times. Not James' lawyer. And certainly not any of the Catholic media outlets who have embraced James' story as unquestionably true as part of an agenda.

Comments

  1. Julie Nickell says:

    And of course the Associated Press is all over this while the Associated Press is ignoring the recent Fort Worth Star-Telegram's stories about the hundreds of pedophile clergy uncovered in the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches. 

  2. I know only too well how a story like this can evolve as it becomes more sensational and more profitable, and then is reported by a news media that has abandoned professional skepticism to pummel the  Catholic Church.  In 2016 USA Today carried a front page story about hundreds of public school teachers accused of abuse only to be shuffled to other districts to teach again.  Then in the very same issue USA Today carried an editorial blasting the Catholic Church for not being transparent enough for failing to report the names of priests accused 40 to 60 years ago.  Now let's get this straight.  They were not accused 40 to 60 years ago.  They are accused today for events claimed to have occurred 40 to 60 years ago.  Most are dead.  USA Today wants their names for cases that can never be substantiated.  They simply want to inflate the scandal and keep it going.  They do this because they think their readers are idiots.  Thank you, Dave Pierre for your continued factual reporting.  

  3. Tony Kurzendoerfer says:

    I watched the video with Dr. Taylor Marshall and when James Grein first said he had a really good childhood it did seem contradictory.   But, later he explains that he had a good childhood BEFORE he was abused (before 9 or 11 years old).    Then everything changed.   James Grein is not easy to follow because he does not tell his story in chronological order.   Many times he is requestioned regarding timeline clarifications in the interview with Taylor Marshall.    Many people do not recount stories in chronological order.   They tell stories as they come to their mind as part of a stream of consciousness.   James appears to be one of those people.

    Secondly, James stated that everytime he saw McCarrick, McCarrick 'abused' him.   That is NOT a contradiction to his second statement that McCarrick forced him to sleep with him but didn't sexually abuse him.   I can't believe that anyone would claim that forcing a child or adult victim to sleep with McCarrick is NOT abuse.  So, therefore I don't see the contradiction in his statement.

    • Dan says:

      Tony, Don't you know that it's very acceptable for catholic clergy, grown men to sleep with young boys? They've been known to do this in their rectories, before and after mass, on camping trips and many times in the very homes of the parents who adored and trusted them. Don't you know that it's OK, because even Scout Masters, teachers and pedophile perverts do the same things? Why should the Catholic hierarchy be deprived of being sexually immoral creeps? Why would you even question the very initiation process to becoming a priest? Thank you for your insight.

  4. Julie says:

    Interesting article, well worth the read if you can make it through it. I know that you won't read it Dan, and that is OK. You seem to have an obsession with the Catholic Church, and so this might pique your interest but does not fit your narrative. Whatever floats your boat, man, and God bless you, as always. There are others here however who will find it compelling. https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/pa-grand-jury-report-not-what-it-seems

    • TheMediaReport.com says:

      I am typing a post about this article at this very moment.

      It is indeed a must-read for everyone!

    • Dan says:

      Julie, I don't understand why I have to be the highlight of all your posts? Do you have some "obsession" with me? I will read any valid arguments you guys post. The article states 2 distinct charges -

      1 – "The first one concerns predator priests, their many victims, and their unspeakable acts. Appalling as this first charge is, it is in fact this second one that has had the greatest reverberations. All of these victims, the report declares, 'were brushed aside in every part of the state, by church leaders who preferred to protect the abusers and their institutions above all.' The introduction to the report sums it up, "Priests were raping little boys and girls, and the men of God who were responsible for them not only did nothing; they hid it all."

      After agreeing with what he states is the first charge, and likewise agreeing in most cases with the second charge, there is something I need to question. If a Church apologist has to write approximately 50 pages explaining and disputing the second charge, is he trying to convince everyone or just himself that this charge isn't true. I read the majority of the PA grand-jury report, and I totally disagree with your authors statement that the "second charge is in fact grossly misleading, irresponsible, inaccurate and unjust". Just because this is his pro-catholic biased opinion, doesn't make it "fact". I would wish Catholics would try thinking for themselves.

       

    • Dan says:

      Add. – The Word states, "But those who persist in sin should be rebuked in front of everyone, so that the others will stand in fear of sin."  1 Tim 5:20  Read this this morning.

      My question is, Did the bishops follow Biblical principles or did they prefer their own method of dealing with their "predator priests"? No. they kept secret the sins of their clergy, they did not rebuke them for their sins, making it possible for them to continue harming innocent children. Thus the second charge holds true.

    • LLC says:

      Dan,

      “If a Church apologist has to write approximately 50 pages explaining and disputing the second charge, is he trying to convince everyone or just himself that this charge isn't true” = few comments here. First, how did you count the fifty pages? Secondly, given the (absurd) length of the PA Grand Jury report, 50 pages are not indeed disproportionate. Thirdly, Peter Steinfels is not an apologist per se; he is a journalist, and is actually doing a pretty good job unmasking the biased view of the PA DA and Grand Jury. Finally, he is not explaining the second charge; with data at hand, he simply disputes it, and completely succeeds in his task.

      “I totally disagree” = since this is a free Country, it is entirely your right to do so, as it is entirely my right to approve of Mr. Steinfels’ conclusions.

      “Just because this is his pro-catholic biased opinion, doesn't make it "fact" = correct. He disproves the second charge with data at hands, unlike you.

      “I would wish Catholics would try thinking for themselves” = we do that, all the time (thinking, I mean. We don’t try).

      As for 1 Timothy 5:20, please continue reading the following verse: “I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism”. Your bias against the Catholic Church has removed all chances of impartiality in your judgement. Again, it is your choice; just remember that “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (Matthew 7:2).

  5. Julie says:

    I was hoping you would do a post on that article. Thank you. 

Leave a Reply to Father Gordon J. MacRae Cancel reply

*