Hmmm… I never thought of vowing to have more sex. Perhaps I could argue to women that now I have an obligation!
Yes, it does.
But violation of that vow doesn’t translate into a penalty of public disclosure, does it?
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.
Bricker:
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.
Miller:
I wonder if the OP was confused by this sentence?
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.
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.
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?’
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.
hotflungwok:
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.
When your pitting OP fails this horribly it is often tempting to try and salvage something but it usually ends in disaster. There is nothing to pit there and you are trying to manufacture outrage.
Freddy_the_Pig:
A hypothetical question, for anyone who wishes to answer:
You have a 45-year-old neighbor, whose history, in the last five years, includes the following:
[ul]He propositioned two young women, strangers to him, age 19 and 20, in a bookstore, asking them, “Are you fucking horny right now?”[/ul][ul]He cruised a local park, in a sufficiently suspicious manner to attract police attention, where young women of indeterminate age hang out, looking for casual sex hookups.[/ul][ul]He was arrested after driving drunk to a local gas station to pick up teenage girls.[/ul]Would you trust this neighbor alone with your 14-year-old daughter?
I see where you’re going with this, and the question does warrant some thought.
Oh, the MSP Catholic Archdiocese has PLENTY to pit about.
Let’s start here from yesterday’s news
Roman Catholic Archbishop John Nienstedt of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis drafted a letter to the Vatican **last year **asking whether pornography found on a Hugo priest’s computer could “expose the archdiocese, as well as myself, to criminal prosecution,” according to a copy obtained by Minnesota Public Radio.
So, Nienstedt knows about the crap and is more worried about lawsuits than about what’s doing right…well almost:
Lemme back up a bit, in case you’re confused since this is a different case:
St. Paul police Tuesday reopened their child pornography investigation involving a Hugo priest and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.
Police on Sept. 29 had closed their investigation into allegations the Rev. Jonathan Shelley possessed child pornography on his computer after discs turned over by the archdiocese contained only adult porn.
Less than a week later, the case took a twist.
Nine years ago, a Hugo parishioner who once owned the house where Shelley lived had obtained the priest’s computer, saw sexual images on it and reported them to the archdiocese. That man, Joe Ternus, said he remembered last week that he had copied files from the device’s hard drive before he turned it over to the archdiocese in 2004.
On Friday, he gave those files to police.
So it seems the church lied about what was on the original computer and may be in trouble as the guy made a backup copy. The plot thickens. But there was no history of this really to go on, was there?
The official, Jennifer Haselberger, resigned as chancellor for canonical affairs April 30 because she said the church was not acting on her concerns regarding Shelley and another priest, Curtis Wehmeyer. Wehmeyer received a five-year prison sentence in February for sexually abusing two boys and for possession of child pornography.
Oops.
But, if you think this is manufactured outrage, I’d hate to see your litmus test for real outrage is.