Cook v. the Cardinal | Letters | Chicago Reader

Cook v. the Cardinal 

Sign up for our newsletters Subscribe

To the editor,

Your article about Tom Economus [November 5] has a misleading spin on the accusations against Cardinal Bernardin. You say, "Cook's suit against the cardinal collapsed when it was learned that Cook's last therapist was unlicensed, had not made notes either before, during, or after the session in which Cook was hypnotized, and had not taped any of their sessions together."

In fact, the suit collapsed because Cook recanted everything and said publicly that the accusations weren't true. After that, he and the cardinal had a friendly meeting. Your summary makes it sound like Cardinal Bernardin got off the hook because the accusations would have been difficult to prove. In fact, the case ended because there were no more accusations--the truth came out.

Paul Norris

N. Lakeview

Zak Mucha replies:

Yes, Cook recanted his charges--after his case began to fail. Other victims continued to come forward with charges against the other priest Cook accused of molesting him, forcing the priest to retire--though I don't know if this can be considered "the truth coming out."


Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

Tabbed Event Search

Popular Stories