Catholic League Seeks To ID The Archbishop’s Alleged Victim

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracepoole
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gracepoole said:
minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/12/18/catholic-league-seeks-to-id-the-archbishops-alleged-victim/

Openly identifying sexual abuse victims who are minors – this is disgusting. There are (excellent) reasons why the law has resisted this sort of approach.
Click to expand...


Good for Donahue. I will cut him a check tonight!

From the article:
“Somebody knows who this character is who is making these accusations — I can’t wait to get to the bottom of this,” said Catholic League President Bill Donahue. “Nienstedt has been the subject of a non-stop crusade orchestrated by enemies of the Catholic Church. The time has come when people need to fight back.”

(snip)

“They’ve made statements that they wouldn’t ever make about any other demographic group, and certainly no other religious group,” Donahue said. “I’m not saying they’re dishonest, I’m simply saying there is a politicized agenda there. They’re not the only game in town (so) we’re going to go past them, they’re not the only game in town.”
Glad to see there is somebody out there willing to fight back.

Thanks for making me aware of this Grace!!! :tiphat:
 
By the way, from the Catholic League:

ARCHBISHOP NIENSTEDT DESERVES JUSTICE

(snip)

Now—out of the blue—comes an unidentified male who claims he was touched on his buttocks in 2009 by the archbishop while posing for a group photo. Nienstedt denies the charge, adding that he has never inappropriately touched anyone. Moreover, he has not been told the identity of his accuser.

The Catholic League is asking those who were there to share with us any information they have. Specifically, we are interested in obtaining a tape recording, or set of photos, of any Confirmation ceremony in 2009 where Archbishop Nienstedt was present; presumably, the alleged victim was standing next to the archbishop. Also, we are asking anyone who knows anything about the accuser (someone knows who he is) to come forward. Please email us at pr@catholicleague.org.

I know of no other leader, religious or secular, who would step down pending an investigation because some guy says he was touched on his behind four years ago in a group photo. It’s time the bishops revised their “zero tolerance” policy. Too often, it means zero justice for the accused, thus undermining the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty.

(snip)

Again, thank you SO MUCH for bringing this to my attention, Grace!
 
Good, good… Yes, let’s place the needs of the priest/Church over a child whom the law assumes was legitimately abused. Let’s applaud the man who advocates for setting back victim rights for minors and believes these rights shouldn’t apply to this boy because he dared to accuse a priest.
 
gracepoole said:
Good, good… Yes, let’s place the needs of the priest/Church over a child whom the law assumes was legitimately abused. Let’s applaud the man who advocates for setting back victim rights for minors and believes these rights shouldn’t apply to this boy because he dared to accuse a priest.
Click to expand...
The law assumes that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

Donahue did not say he was going to release the name…presumably he won’t do so until the Archbishop is cleared.

Nevertheless, somebody needs to take action against these terrorists. Glad Donahue is stepping up to the task!
 
markomalley said:
Donahue did not say he was going to release the name…presumably he won’t do so until the Archbishop is cleared.

Nevertheless, somebody needs to take action against these terrorists. Glad Donahue is stepping up to the task!
Click to expand...
Um, why would Donahue have the right to this information, whether or not he intends to make it public? And terrorists? Holy crikey, is that hyperbole. We’re talking about a child who alleges he was abused. If your child was abused by his high school teacher and brought this to the authorities, would you want his name given to anyone outside of law enforcement?
 
“Touched on his buttocks in 2009 by the archbishop while posing for a group photo.”? That sounds so much like a set up. Even it it did happen it could have easily been an accident. One time in a crowded room, someone close to me took a step back, and their but accidentally brushed against my hand. It is so ridiculous to go after someone for something so petty. This is like “step on a crack, break your mother’s back” petty. And why would he wait so long to say that it bothered him (if it even happened)? I’m going with innocent until proven guilty.
 
marty1818 said:
I haven’t seen in any articles that the accuser is still a minor. Considering this alleged incident happened 4 years ago at a confirmation, there’s a fair chance the accuser is not a minor.
Click to expand...
That’s a good point.
 
gracepoole said:
Good, good… Yes, let’s place the needs of the priest/Church over a child whom the law assumes was legitimately abused. Let’s applaud the man who advocates for setting back victim rights for minors and believes these rights shouldn’t apply to this boy because he dared to accuse a priest.
Click to expand...
Interestingly I had the wrong idea about the law. Silly me thought the law said you were innocent until proven guilty 🤷

I have straight now there is no such thing as a false allegation do you hear that Fr. Chris Eggleton. It must have been a mistake that you were declared innocent. If it is a minor making these allegations, well forget the 6th amendment right to face your accuser.
 
marty1818 said:
I haven’t seen in any articles that the accuser is still a minor. Considering this alleged incident happened 4 years ago at a confirmation, there’s a fair chance the accuser is not a minor.
Click to expand...
The article refers to the accuser as a “boy” and the identities of minors involved in sexual abuse cases are considered private. Thankfully, it’s not up to any of us to determine whether this is a “set-up.” (Hint: it’s also not up to Bill Donahue.)
 
gracepoole said:
Um, why would Donahue have the right to this information, whether or not he intends to make it public? And terrorists? Holy crikey, is that hyperbole. We’re talking about a child who alleges he was abused. If your child was abused by his high school teacher and brought this to the authorities, would you want his name given to anyone outside of law enforcement?
Click to expand...
No, we’re talking about a young adult. The youngest that they will confirm in that diocese is the 8th grade. An 8th grader in the spring of 2009 would have graduated in the summer of 2013…meaning that the accuser is an adult now.

As far as terrorists, I use the word intentionally.

You forget the vitriol that he has had spewed at him since he took possession of the Archdiocese back in 2008. He had threats against him during his (sadly unsuccessful) battle to protect the people of Minnesota against the scourge of the perversion of marriage.

So the terrorist message is: “dare to stand against our agenda and we will ruin you”

And with attitudes that you display (don’t know if this is really what you think, but these were your words)…whom the law assumes was legitimately abused…they will undoubtedly be successful in all cases. Why? Because you have already assumed that the young adult accuser is telling the truth and that Nienstedt is lying. No matter how ludicrous the claim.

Think about this with a modicum of common sense:
  • He is an archbishop…meaning, regardless of whether or not he is a “nice person”, he’s nobody’s dummy
  • He is in a public setting with 50-100 8th graders, siblings of those 8th graders, parents of those 8th graders, teachers from those 8th graders, other clergy, altar servers, and so on and so forth…a confirmation is a “big” event in a parish…particularly when the archbishop shows up…not exactly a private event
  • He is accused of copping a feel in such an environment (“inappropriately touching the boy’s buttocks”)
Now think about it: he’s not being accused of doing this during a retreat, he’s not being accused of doing this in the chancery or in a rectory, he’s not being accused of doing this in the confessional…he’s being accused of doing this in front of likely 200+ witnesses. And he’s being accused of doing so in a post 2002 environment (when the bottom came out for all the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s abuse cases)

EVEN IF (GOD FORBID) he was an abuser, that accusation defies common sense. This is terrorism, no more and no less. It is mud being thrown because with some people, they’ll believe it.
 
markomalley said:
No, we’re talking about a young adult. The youngest that they will confirm in that diocese is the 8th grade. An 8th grader in the spring of 2009 would have graduated in the summer of 2013…meaning that the accuser is an adult now.
Click to expand...
You do realize that it’s not the age of the victim when prosecution takes place that matters but his age when the abuse allegedly took place…right?
markomalley said:
As far as terrorists, I use the word intentionally.
Click to expand...
I assumed. It’s still incredibly hyperbolic.
markomalley said:
Think about this with a modicum of common sense:
  • He is an archbishop…meaning, regardless of whether or not he is a “nice person”, he’s nobody’s dummy
  • He is in a public setting with 50-100 8th graders, siblings of those 8th graders, parents of those 8th graders, teachers from those 8th graders, other clergy, altar servers, and so on and so forth…a confirmation is a “big” event in a parish…particularly when the archbishop shows up…not exactly a private event
  • He is accused of copping a feel in such an environment (“inappropriately touching the boy’s buttocks”)
Now think about it: he’s not being accused of doing this during a retreat, he’s not being accused of doing this in the chancery or in a rectory, he’s not being accused of doing this in the confessional…he’s being accused of doing this in front of likely 200+ witnesses. And he’s being accused of doing so in a post 2002 environment (when the bottom came out for all the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s abuse cases)

EVEN IF (GOD FORBID) he was an abuser, that accusation defies common sense. This is terrorism, no more and no less. It is mud being thrown because with some people, they’ll believe it.
Click to expand...
We have very different views of common sense, apparently. If this case is really a non-issue, why hasn’t the archdiocese been forthcoming in the investigation?
 
gracepoole said:
You do realize that it’s not the age of the victim when prosecution takes place that matters but his age when the abuse allegedly took place…right?
Click to expand...
Whether a crime was committed or not…yup.

Whether the individual involved is an adult and accountable for his accusations…absolutely not.

(I can just picture it now…some 95 year old man who needs something to supplement his income contacts Jeff Anderson and talks about his abuser priest who touched him on the buttocks during his baptism…too bad the priest has been dead for 60 years, along with every other witness…but I’m sure that Anderson would dilligently pursue the case and work for a $500,000 settlement)
We have very different views of common sense, apparently. If this case is really a non-issue, why hasn’t the archdiocese been forthcoming in the investigation?
Click to expand...
Obviously. I believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

As does canon law.

As does the US Constitution.

But I’ll play along: if the archbishop was not forthcoming, then why was his agent directed immediately to report the incident to the police? And why did Nienstedt voluntarily step aside?
 
gracepoole said:
We have very different views of common sense, apparently. If this case is really a non-issue, why hasn’t the archdiocese been forthcoming in the investigation?
Click to expand...
What evidence do you have that they haven’t.
 
markomalley said:
Obviously. I believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...
How does this translate to Bill Donohue having the right to know the identity of the accuser?
adrift said:
What evidence do you have that they haven’t.
Click to expand...
From the article:
St. Paul Police has yet to comment. However, St. Paul Police Chief Thomas Smith accused the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis Tuesday of not fully cooperating with investigations into alleged sex abuse by priests. He said that church officials declined to make clergy available to investigators.
Click to expand...
 
gracepoole said:
How does this translate to Bill Donahue having the right to know the identity of the accuser?

From the article:
Click to expand...
Has yet to comment.

Meaning, in this case the archdiocese just might be forthcoming. We don’t know for sure at this moment!
 
Hobbes42 said:
Has yet to comment.

Meaning, in this case the archdiocese just might be forthcoming. We don’t know for sure at this moment!
Click to expand...
Read this one more time:
St. Paul Police has yet to comment. However, St. Paul Police Chief Thomas Smith accused the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis Tuesday of not fully cooperating with investigations into alleged sex abuse by priests. He said that church officials declined to make clergy available to investigators.
Click to expand...
On what basis are we to dismiss the police chief’s comment?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top