# To the St Paul/Minneapolis Catholic archdiocese, with special regards to Rev. Kevin McDonough: **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 25, 2013, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-st-paul-minneapolis-catholic-archdiocese-with-special-regards-to-rev-kevin-mcdonough/669659 "2013-09-25T17:51:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-st-paul-minneapolis-catholic-archdiocese-with-special-regards-to-rev-kevin-mcdonough/669659/1 "2013-09-25T17:51:44Z")
Please jump into a wood chipper. Or hay baler. Or garbage compactor. Your choice. In 2012 Blessed Sacrament Church pastor Curtis Wehmeyer was touching little boys, and one of them talked. What did the church do? > [@](#): > > In public statements, the archdiocese expressed regret for “the pain caused by clergy misconduct” and offered support to victims. And it emphasized that it immediately reported the allegations to police. Well, good for you. Wait, what was that? The vicar general Rev. Kevin McDonough knew that Curtis Wehmeyer was a pedophile cuz he had done this before? And he still moved the guy to a new parish? And he covered it up? And told everyone not to tell the parish about him? [It is.](http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2013/09/clergy-abuse/) > [@](#): > > In the 2011 memo to the head of the archdiocese’s program for monitoring priests who posed a risk, McDonough explained why he thought parish employees didn’t need to know about Wehmeyer’s actions. > > “I think that you share with me the opinion that he really was not all that interested in an actual sexual encounter, but rather was obtaining some stimulation by ‘playing with fire,’” McDonough wrote. “This sort of behavior would not show up in the workplace.” > > McDonough also asked Wehmeyer for his opinion on whether to tell parish employees. Wehmeyer, who by that time had already sexually abused the children of a parish employee, advised against it. > > McDonough wrote, “I agree with Father Curtis that disclosure there would only serve to out his sexual identity questions (which, by the way, would be unlikely to surprise any observant person in the parish!)” > > He concluded, “My recommendation is that we would encourage (or even require) Father Wehmeyer to disclose his pattern of self-destructive behavior to a small circle of trusted friends.” > [@](#): > > At the time he said that, McDonough already knew that Wehmeyer had engaged in troubling sexual encounters — that he had approached young men for sex at a bookstore and cruised nearby parks. > [@](#): > > McDonough, in an interview with MPR News last week, said he still thinks that his response was appropriate and the risk zero, given the information available at the time. “Nothing, nothing, nothing in this man’s behavior known to us would have convinced any reasonable person that he was likely to harm kids,” he said. And people still trust them. In the immortal words of Tim Minchin: Fuck the motherfuckers ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-st-paul-minneapolis-catholic-archdiocese-with-special-regards-to-rev-kevin-mcdonough/669659/2 "2013-09-25T18:53:02Z")
Am I missing something? Where are you getting that he knew the guy was a pedophile? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-st-paul-minneapolis-catholic-archdiocese-with-special-regards-to-rev-kevin-mcdonough/669659/3 "2013-09-25T18:58:34Z")
I’m confused by the story. The diocese knew that he was approaching “young men,” which is not a crime and which is not a sign that someone is going to do something to children. But I’m having trouble figuring out exactly what else the diocese knew. I’m also a bit baffled by the story about the boy abusing the girls (his sisters?) and his mother not understanding how he could possibly know anything about sex, even though he was apparently 12 or 14 at the time. But that’s a minor eyebrow raise. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-st-paul-minneapolis-catholic-archdiocese-with-special-regards-to-rev-kevin-mcdonough/669659/4 "2013-09-25T19:13:15Z")
The previous behavior was sexual misconduct for a priest, yes – but it was, as I read it, sexual activity oriented towards adults. I assume the OP is not suggesting that gay men are some special risk for being abusive pedophiles. But it’s hard to read any other conclusion into this. The diocese knew he sought out men for sex, so it should have notified the parish in order to keep the kids safe? Please tell me I misunderstood. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-st-paul-minneapolis-catholic-archdiocese-with-special-regards-to-rev-kevin-mcdonough/669659/5 "2013-09-25T19:26:52Z")
I wonder if the OP was confused by this sentence? > [@](#): > > McDonough also asked Wehmeyer for his opinion on whether to tell parish employees. Wehmeyer, who by that time had already sexually abused the children of a parish employee, advised against it. At first blush, it sounds like it’s referring to a previous incident, other than the one that got him arrested. But it’s just saying that the conversation took place after he had molested the children, but before the kids had told anyone about it. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-st-paul-minneapolis-catholic-archdiocese-with-special-regards-to-rev-kevin-mcdonough/669659/6 "2013-09-25T19:34:33Z")
Hmm, ok, I think I got the timeline mixed up, I thought it was talking about multiple instances. It looks like he wasn’t (necessarily) a pedophile before this, but: > [@](#): > > Haselberger opened Wehmeyer’s file and realized there was no background check on the priest, even though the diocese had a policy that required background checks for all clergy. > > Haselberger kept looking, and saw documents that reported Wehmeyer had a sexual addiction and the archdiocese knew about it. > > She knew that Nienstedt was considering whether to promote Wehmeyer, so she sent him a memo alerting him to review the file. She also attached a copy of the earlier psychological and sexual assessment of Wehmeyer. The priest’s personnel file included evidence that Wehmeyer had violated the archdiocese’s code of conduct several times. They knew he had sexual problems prior to this. And during this time: > [@](#): > > While she waited for a response, the archdiocese continued to receive reports on Wehmeyer — three in 2009. > > In one case, a priest called to say that Wehmeyer had approached him for sex. > > Someone else reported seeing Wehmeyer acting suspiciously with boys at a campground. Those were the same boys Wehmeyer was later accused of abusing, Haselberger said. The archdiocese’s child safety policy forbids priests from spending time overnight alone with a child. So yeah, they moved a man with known psychological sexual problems to a parish, instructed others not to say anything about it, and ignored incoming complaints about the man doing what they already he knew he was capable of. Even if he wasn’t a pedophile (prior to this), that’s still horribly wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-st-paul-minneapolis-catholic-archdiocese-with-special-regards-to-rev-kevin-mcdonough/669659/7 "2013-09-25T20:04:06Z")
Absent more information on the nature of the “suspicious behavior,” I can’t really back you up on that one, sport. Being gay isn’t something that his parish needed to know about. Neither is his “sexual addiction.” Neither were causing him to violate any laws, or endanger any other people. Neither were evidence that he would be a danger to children. McDonough did the absolute correct and compassionate thing by not outing him on those issues. Incidentally, it’s kind of hard to tell if your position in this thread is based on a dislike of the Catholic church, or a dislike of gay people. A lot of your arguments are really, really close to saying that being gay is a reliable warning sign of pedophilia. Could you clear that up for us? ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-st-paul-minneapolis-catholic-archdiocese-with-special-regards-to-rev-kevin-mcdonough/669659/8 "2013-09-25T20:22:09Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Absent more information on the nature of the “suspicious behavior,” I can’t really back you up on that one, sport. Being gay isn’t something that his parish needed to know about. Neither is his “sexual addiction.” Neither were causing him to violate any laws, or endanger any other people. Neither were evidence that he would be a danger to children. McDonough did the absolute correct and compassionate thing by not outing him on those issues. You should probably try to read the article. Especially the parts about the archdiocese sending him to the St. Luke Institute and having him attend Sexaholics Anonymous meets. Priests really aren’t supposed to lean in real close to people and say ‘Are you f\_\_\_\_\_ horny right now?’ > [@](#): > > Incidentally, it’s kind of hard to tell if your position in this thread is based on a dislike of the Catholic church, or a dislike of gay people. A lot of your arguments are really, really close to saying that being gay is a reliable warning sign of pedophilia. Could you clear that up for us? Well, the fact that I haven’t actually mentioned him being gay at all is probably a hint. Also the fact that none of my arguments have said that being gay is a reliable warning sign of pedophilia, that’s definitely telling. My position in this thread is that the archdiocese in question transferred a person they knew to be psychologically disturbed sexually, hid that fact from the parish, and ignored complaints relevant to the problem they already knew existed. If they had done the right thing at any step in this process then there would have been no sexual assault. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-st-paul-minneapolis-catholic-archdiocese-with-special-regards-to-rev-kevin-mcdonough/669659/9 "2013-09-25T20:26:45Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > My position in this thread is that the archdiocese in question transferred a person they knew to be psychologically disturbed sexually, hid that fact from the parish, and ignored complaints relevant to the problem they already knew existed. If they had done the right thing at any step in this process then there would have been no sexual assault. But the church thinks gay guys are psychologically disturbed sexually. They think that about all gay guys. The church thinking you’re psychologically disturbed means nothing, since the church is a bunch of judgmental idiots regarding sexuality. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-st-paul-minneapolis-catholic-archdiocese-with-special-regards-to-rev-kevin-mcdonough/669659/10 "2013-09-25T20:38:50Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Hmm, ok, I think I got the timeline mixed up, I thought it was talking about multiple instances. It looks like he wasn’t (necessarily) a pedophile before this, but: > > They knew he had sexual problems prior to this. > > And during this time: > > So yeah, they moved a man with known psychological sexual problems to a parish, instructed others not to say anything about it, and ignored incoming complaints about the man doing what they already he knew he was capable of. Even if he wasn’t a pedophile (prior to this), that’s still horribly wrong. Well… The “sexual problems,” are from the point of view of the Catholic Church. But are you saying that a male adult who seeks brief, anonymous sexual encounters with other adults of the same sex has sexual problems from your point of view, as well? In other words, you seem to be endorsing the Catholic view that same-sex sexual activity is, per se, a problem. Or was there some other aspect of his behavior that was problematic enough that it should have triggered his employer’s revealing what it knew to the parish? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-st-paul-minneapolis-catholic-archdiocese-with-special-regards-to-rev-kevin-mcdonough/669659/11 "2013-09-25T20:41:03Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > My position in this thread is that the archdiocese in question transferred a person they knew to be psychologically disturbed sexually, hid that fact from the parish, and ignored complaints relevant to the problem they already knew existed. If they had done the right thing at any step in this process then there would have been no sexual assault. Again, though, you call his behavior psychologically disturbed sexually. What, specifically, do you find about his behavior that indicates psychologically disturbed sexuality? ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-st-paul-minneapolis-catholic-archdiocese-with-special-regards-to-rev-kevin-mcdonough/669659/12 "2013-09-25T20:50:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Again, though, you call his behavior psychologically disturbed sexually. What, specifically, do you find about his behavior that indicates psychologically disturbed sexuality? Besides the whole ‘priests should not be trolling for sex at public parks’ thing? The article did not specifically say that they were sending him to get help cuz he was gay, and until it was mentioned here it didn’t cross my mind. I really just thought it was cuz he was looking for people to have sex with rather than staying home and being celibate. Now that you put it this way I can see what you mean. If the whole thing prior to the child abuse was because he was gay, then I’m going to blame the archdiocese for being homophobic bigots, but not for keeping it a secret. I’m also going to blame them for not responding to the complaints they received about him immediately prior to the child abuse, especially the one where he drove drunk to a gas station and tried to pick up teenagers. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-st-paul-minneapolis-catholic-archdiocese-with-special-regards-to-rev-kevin-mcdonough/669659/13 "2013-09-25T20:57:13Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Besides the whole ‘priests should not be trolling for sex at public parks’ thing? Of course I concur: priests should not be doing that. Nor should they be trying to pick up young women at bars. Priests have agreed to be celibate. But the question is: do you believe that if you’re a priest, and your bosses in the church discover you’re gay and have sought to break your vow of chastity with another man, should they out you? > [@](#): > > I’m also going to blame them for not responding to the complaints they received about him immediately prior to the child abuse, especially the one where he drove drunk to a gas station and tried to pick up teenagers. By “teenagers,” you mean minors, or teens 18 and over? And you’re saying the archdiocese should have revealed to his parish that he was arrested for drunk driving? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-st-paul-minneapolis-catholic-archdiocese-with-special-regards-to-rev-kevin-mcdonough/669659/14 "2013-09-25T22:39:17Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > You should probably try to read the article. Especially the parts about the archdiocese sending him to the St. Luke Institute and having him attend Sexaholics Anonymous meets. Priests really aren’t supposed to lean in real close to people and say ‘Are you f\_\_\_\_\_ horny right now?’ Yes, I did read the article. And no, priests are not supposed to say that. But I’m not seeing why I should be _outraged_ that he did that. I’m not a Catholic. I’m not even a Christian. He wasn’t breaking any rule that, you know, actually matters. > [@](#): > > Well, the fact that I haven’t actually mentioned him being gay at all is probably a hint. Also the fact that none of my arguments have said that being gay is a reliable warning sign of pedophilia, that’s definitely telling. Well, you keep acting like he’d done some terrible thing prior to messing with these kids, which his superiors should have obviously recognized as a warning sigh and intervened. Except all that I can see he’s done is be interested in having sex with men, and not be sufficiently discreet about it. So… I’m not really clear what you’re angry about? > [@](#): > > My position in this thread is that the archdiocese in question transferred a person they knew to be psychologically disturbed sexually, hid that fact from the parish, and ignored complaints relevant to the problem they already knew existed. If they had done the right thing at any step in this process then there would have been no sexual assault. I guess it’s the sex addiction thing you’re confused about, then? A sex addict (and there’s controversy over whether that’s a legitimate diagnosis or not) is not some wild-eyes, pantsless maniac, uncontrollably humping everyone in sight. It’s just someone who prioritizes their sex life to such a high extent that it’s detrimental to the rest of their life. It’s in no way any sort of sign that the person is a danger to anyone else, particularly children. Now, there is that report about him behaving “suspiciously,” and that _could_ be significant - particularly that it appears he was with the kids he later molested when he did it. But it could also be something that no reasonable person would think was suspicious, or that really had a legitimate explanation. Without more details, I’m not quite ready to fire up the woodchipper for McDonough. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-st-paul-minneapolis-catholic-archdiocese-with-special-regards-to-rev-kevin-mcdonough/669659/15 "2013-09-25T23:02:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But the question is: do you believe that if you’re a priest, and your bosses in the church discover you’re gay and have sought to break your vow of chastity with another man, should they out you? No, which is exactly what I said in the third paragraph above. They should have done something about the ‘going out and finding sex’ thing though. I don’t know how the church handles problems like that, but in this case I think the answer is ‘poorly’. > [@](#): > > By “teenagers,” you mean minors, or teens 18 and over? No idea, the article just said teenagers. > [@](#): > > And you’re saying the archdiocese should have revealed to his parish that he was arrested for drunk driving? The article doesn’t say who found out, it just skips to the part where he’s talking to the police. I’m going to guess that that means either he or the police went to archdiocese first. The archdiocese probably should have told someone at the parish about it, for no other reason to get someone to help him. The article said that Jennifer Haselberger knew something was going on with him, and warned them about it. Should they have put up fliers around town announcing what happened? No of course not, but they did nothing to stop it, and easily could have. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-st-paul-minneapolis-catholic-archdiocese-with-special-regards-to-rev-kevin-mcdonough/669659/16 "2013-09-25T23:09:34Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > The article said that Jennifer Haselberger knew something was going on with him, and warned them about it. Should they have put up fliers around town announcing what happened? No of course not, but they did nothing to stop it, and easily could have. I’m really confused about what you think the diocese should have done. Can you be specific about what the diocese knew and should have done differently? ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-st-paul-minneapolis-catholic-archdiocese-with-special-regards-to-rev-kevin-mcdonough/669659/17 "2013-09-25T23:10:30Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Yes, I did read the article. And no, priests are not supposed to say that. But I’m not seeing why I should be _outraged_ that he did that. I’m not a Catholic. I’m not even a Christian. He wasn’t breaking any rule that, you know, actually matters. That isn’t the part that outraged me. > [@](#): > > Well, you keep acting like he’d done some terrible thing prior to messing with these kids, which his superiors should have obviously recognized as a warning sigh and intervened. Except all that I can see he’s done is be interested in having sex with men, and not be sufficiently discreet about it. So… I’m not really clear what you’re angry about? He was a _priest_ out trolling for _sex_. And it wasn’t even necessarily terrible what he did, it’s that fact that it established a pattern. The archdiocese already knew that this guy was behaving inappropriately sexually, ignored further warnings that he was continuing his old habits, and sat back and did nothing until this guy molested kids. > [@](#): > > I guess it’s the sex addiction thing you’re confused about, then? A sex addict (and there’s controversy over whether that’s a legitimate diagnosis or not) is not some wild-eyes, pantsless maniac, uncontrollably humping everyone in sight. It’s just someone who prioritizes their sex life to such a high extent that it’s detrimental to the rest of their life. It’s in no way any sort of sign that the person is a danger to anyone else, particularly children. Yeah, I know. What you seemed to be confused about is that the guy was a priest. If you find out that a priest in your archdiocese is a sex addict, sending him to a parish, not warning anyone else to maybe look out for the guy, and making him a pastor isn’t really the best choice. > [@](#): > > Now, there is that report about him behaving “suspiciously,” and that _could_ be significant - particularly that it appears he was with the kids he later molested when he did it. But it could also be something that no reasonable person would think was suspicious, or that really had a legitimate explanation. Without more details, I’m not quite ready to fire up the woodchipper for McDonough. Kids got molested and they could have stopped it if they’d gotten up off their ass and done something about it. The Catholic Church used up all their chances a long time ago. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-st-paul-minneapolis-catholic-archdiocese-with-special-regards-to-rev-kevin-mcdonough/669659/18 "2013-09-25T23:13:17Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I’m really confused about what you think the diocese should have done. Can you be specific about what the diocese knew and should have done differently? Um, what they knew is in the article. At the very least they could have had someone with him. They also could have pulled him from his post when he started hitting up teenagers in a gas station parking lot while drunk. I don’t know what their policy is on priests going off the reservation, but whatever it is it didn’t work here. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-st-paul-minneapolis-catholic-archdiocese-with-special-regards-to-rev-kevin-mcdonough/669659/19 "2013-09-25T23:15:30Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > He was a _priest_ out trolling for _sex_. And it wasn’t even necessarily terrible what he did, it’s that fact that it established a pattern. The archdiocese already knew that this guy was behaving inappropriately sexually, ignored further warnings that he was continuing his old habits, and sat back and did nothing until this guy molested kids. So, it wasn’t terrible what he did, but because he’s a priest it’s terrible, and even though the diocese would label homosexuality in general as inappropriate, if they say he’s got a sex problem then we ought to assume he is a child molester? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-st-paul-minneapolis-catholic-archdiocese-with-special-regards-to-rev-kevin-mcdonough/669659/20 "2013-09-26T00:05:15Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > He was a _priest_ out trolling for _sex_. And it wasn’t even necessarily terrible what he did, it’s that fact that it established a pattern. The archdiocese already knew that this guy was behaving inappropriately sexually, ignored further warnings that he was continuing his old habits, and sat back and did nothing until this guy molested kids. Yeah, it established a pattern of him being interested in sex with adults. I’m not clear how being interested in sex with adults can be taken as a warning sign of pedophilia. Can you clear that up for me? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-st-paul-minneapolis-catholic-archdiocese-with-special-regards-to-rev-kevin-mcdonough/669659.md?page=2)