Clergy accountability

[PbloPicasso]

What are your thoughts about submitting information from the Bishop Accountability site to a present employer (a university) of a former priest that molested a (technically raped) college seminarian? Basically, if that “priest” is now married, teaching again, relocated, never justly prosecuted, etc., then … why not if the intention is to protect others?

I posted this hear because the same could obviously include Protestant clergy as well. I have a fundamentalist evangelical background if that matters for your discussion.

 

[Church_Militant]

If they were never prosecuted then there may be a very good reason for that.
Moreover, if he has changed his ways then as the book of Ecclesiasticus says,
[bibledrb]Ecclesiasticus 8:6[/bibledrb]

 

[PbloPicasso]

I understand your perspective. But people pay the price for their own sin. If someone steels today, 20 years from that day they may not be able to obtain a security clearance or even get a job. If a man gets repeated DUIs he will be held accountable for the rest of their life, even if someone was never hurt. I can relate to this last one because my brother received a plea bargain that ultimately made him unemployable right after our brother and mother died. He still makes dumb choices and supposedly has changed. Now, he is perpetually unemployable.

What if the persons this priest molested lived unproductive lives because of continued emotional problems caused from the event. And what if the priest admitted to it and the information to that admission is now public information? I think you are misapplying scripture here. However, forgiveness is more important. But what if closure is important for those hurt by the man’s crimes and there is a glimmer of hope for some justice?

 

[JULIAN_PINTO]

this matter can be pushed by you if you will through the Bishop. you may also gather witnesses to support your case.
be blessed.

 

[1ke]

What are your thoughts about submitting information from the Bishop Accountability site to a present employer (a university) of a former priest that molested a (technically raped) college seminarian? Basically, if that “priest” is now married, teaching again, relocated, never justly prosecuted, etc., then … why not if the intention is to protect others?

I posted this hear because the same could obviously include Protestant clergy as well. I have a fundamentalist evangelical background if that matters for your discussion.

If you or someone you know has a legitimate case against him, take it to the proper authorities-- the police. Give them proof and allow this person their day in court. Submitting it to the police is the proper procedure if your goal is justice.

Submitting it to his employer with only an *accusation *and nothing substantiating it is the procedure if your goal is **revenge **(which is a sin).

 

[PbloPicasso]

If you or someone you know has a legitimate case against him, take it to the proper authorities-- the police. Give them proof and allow this person their day in court. Submitting it to the police is the proper procedure if your goal is justice.

Submitting it to his employer with only an *accusation *and nothing substantiating it is the procedure if your goal is **revenge **(which is a sin).

The published Bishop Accountability wording says that it was settled out of court and the victims were never included. They lied.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Who lied? I am not sure I understand what you mean. Based on what you’re saying, there was no criminal case but perhaps some evidence for a civil case. That is not surprising, as standards of evidence are not as high as they are in a criminal case. To be honest, it sounds like there is minimal evidence against the former priest (I am not saying he is innocent) and if that be the case, I don’t see how it is anyone’s business to call the individual’s employer. It could border on slander. Accusations and out of court settlements are not proof of anything.

 

[swariffin]

Who lied? I am not sure I understand what you mean. Based on what you’re saying, there was no criminal case but perhaps some evidence for a civil case. That is not surprising, as standards of evidence are not as high as they are in a criminal case. To be honest, it sounds like there is minimal evidence against the former priest (I am not saying he is innocent) and if that be the case, I don’t see how it is anyone’s business to call the individual’s employer. It could border on slander. Accusations and out of court settlements are not proof of anything.

I am sorry. I am not quite familiar with US Justice system. Is it possible that a criminal can settle his/her case out of court? regardless of the victim?

 

[Lapey]

The published Bishop Accountability wording says that it was settled out of court and the victims were never included. They lied.

Settlement out of court says nothing about guilt or lack there of.

Many people, not just priests are wrongfully accused of these things every year and in every area. I know personally one priest who stands accused of wrong doing and is no longer able to be in ministry even though there is no evidence much less proof of anything except the word of a 25ish year old former seminarian. Who by the way is an openly gay man who has left the Church and is seeking ordination in the Episcapalian Church because they will ordain gay men.

It seems all you have is rumor to go by, and a settlement, you have no evidence or proof that this man has done anything. Be carefull how you judge, you may be judged just as harshly.

 

[puzzleannie]

What are your thoughts about submitting information from the Bishop Accountability site to a present employer (a university) of a former priest that molested a (technically raped) college seminarian? Basically, if that “priest” is now married, teaching again, relocated, never justly prosecuted, etc., then … why not if the intention is to protect others?

I n.

if it is publicly available information, posted by the former “employer” (the Bishops, the diocese, the order) for the express purpose of making the information available to those who need to know, like prospective employers, you have a clear duty to make it known to the one responsible for hiring, not in general to the whole campus. If it is some site that just collects rumors and accusations, without any follow up on disposition of those accusations, there are several such sites that contain damaging false information. If it was a criminal matter it should have come up when the employer did its background check.

 

[puzzleannie]

I am sorry. I am not quite familiar with US Justice system. Is it possible that a criminal can settle his/her case out of court? regardless of the victim?

yes
it depends also on whether it is a civil or criminal case. In many states in the US even of a criminal proceeding is dropped or results in a not-guilty verdict, the victims can still sue for civil damages (the famous OJ Simpson case is an example) and may even get a favorable verdict because the standard of proof is lower. and yes a criminal case is often settled out of court, or before coming to trial, or even in the middle of a trial. Either charges are dropped, or the accused pleads guilty to this or a lesser charge in return for a lower penalty.My course of action would probably be to inform the ex-priest’s former bishop or religious superior of his current whereabouts and employment and let them act, but I would also make the information available to the person, usually department head, who hired the professor. This is a person in contact with youth of the same age as those he allegedly molested so my duty would be clear, morally but also under terms of my current employment with the Church.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

yes
it depends also on whether it is a civil or criminal case. In many states in the US even of a criminal proceeding is dropped or results in a not-guilty verdict, the victims can still sue for civil damages (the famous OJ Simpson case is an example) and may even get a favorable verdict because the standard of proof is lower. and yes a criminal case is often settled out of court, or before coming to trial, or even in the middle of a trial. Either charges are dropped, or the accused pleads guilty to this or a lesser charge in return for a lower penalty.My course of action would probably be to inform the ex-priest’s former bishop or religious superior of his current whereabouts and employment and let them act, but I would also make the information available to the person, usually department head, who hired the professor. This is a person in contact with youth of the same age as those he allegedly molested so my duty would be clear, morally but also under terms of my current employment with the Church.

Civil cases can often are handled out of court. Civil cases are not criminal cases, even if the reason one is being sued could hypothetically result in a criminal charge. Losing a civil suit, or settling out of court, does not make one a convicted criminal. It means, AFAIK, that you were civilly liable. In the case of out of court settlements, it doesn’t even mean that. You can agree to pay without admitting any wrong doing.

Criminal cases are not settled “out of court.” At least not in the sense that that term is usually used. A plea bargain, for example, is not an out of court settlement. You agree to plead guilty in exchange for leniency. The matter is handled entirely by the court. The court accepts your guilty plea and hands down a sentence. The dropping of criminal charges during a trial, for example, is often done by putting a motion before the court to do so. The court makes that decision. The criminal court closely monitors and supervises the whole course of a criminal charge.

Based on what has been revealed here, there does not appear to have been any criminal charges. That means the evidence against the accused is weak. That doesn’t mean the accused is innocent but by the same token it certainly doesn’t establish guilt. Nor does it establish the right of anyone to slander the accused before the accused person’s employer.

 

[swariffin]

Civil cases can often are handled out of court. Civil cases are not criminal cases, even if the reason one is being sued could hypothetically result in a criminal charge. Losing a civil suit, or settling out of court, does not make one a convicted criminal. It means, AFAIK, that you were civilly liable. In the case of out of court settlements, it doesn’t even mean that. You can agree to pay without admitting any wrong doing.

Criminal cases are not settled “out of court.” At least not in the sense that that term is usually used. A plea bargain, for example, is not an out of court settlement. You agree to plead guilty in exchange for leniency. The matter is handled entirely by the court. The court accepts your guilty plea and hands down a sentence. The dropping of criminal charges during a trial, for example, is often done by putting a motion before the court to do so. The court makes that decision. The criminal court closely monitors and supervises the whole course of a criminal charge.

Based on what has been revealed here, there does not appear to have been any criminal charges. That means the evidence against the accused is weak. That doesn’t mean the accused is innocent but by the same token it certainly doesn’t establish guilt. Nor does it establish the right of anyone to slander the accused before the accused person’s employer.

Thank you very much. So, an out of court settlement does not declare nor imply the defendant is really guilty/innosense. Let’s say that the out of court settlement means that the “defendant” pay a certain amount of money, either to the state or to the plaintifff, does it also means that such “defendant” is not necesarily guilty?

 

[puzzleannie]

Civil

Based on what has been revealed here, there does not appear to have been any criminal charges. That means the evidence against the accused is weak. That doesn’t mean the accused is innocent but by the same token it certainly doesn’t establish guilt. Nor does it establish the right of anyone to slander the accused before the accused person’s employer.

we don’t know any of this because OP has not told us anything except an accusation, but he says the information is on a public “Bishop’s Accountability” website (of which I am not aware). don’t even know what country this is in. don’t know if it is a site set up by Bishop’s to inform the public of disposition and status of various cases and accusations, or is it set up by lawyers or survivors or a special interest group which claims to be holding bishops accountable. If he gave us better info we could give him a better answer. In most of these clergy cases at least since 2002 if there was an accusation it has been made public (look at Fr. Corapi’s situation for instance, all kinds of info floating around, immediate suspension, no proof or credibility required).

“out of court settlement” is not really accurate in a criminal case, it does not mean damages were awarded, it means the case did not come to trial or was adjudicated outside the courtroom by agreement of the defense and the prosecution (the state).

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Thank you very much. So, an out of court settlement does not declare nor imply the defendant is really guilty/innosense. Let’s say that the out of court settlement means that the “defendant” pay a certain amount of money, either to the state or to the plaintifff, does it also means that such “defendant” is not necesarily guilty?

Yes, it can mean they are not guilty. The reason they might chose this option, even if innocent, might be something as simple as the defendant wanting to avoid a long, costly trial process and the possibility of bad press and having their name dragged through the mud. Accusations, especially of this nature, take on a life of their own and sometimes never go away. A defendant might just want to get on with their life and so agree to pay a sum of money to get it all over with.

we don’t know any of this because OP has not told us anything except an accusation, but he says the information is on a public “Bishop’s Accountability” website (of which I am not aware). don’t even know what country this is in. don’t know if it is a site set up by Bishop’s to inform the public of disposition and status of various cases and accusations, or is it set up by lawyers or survivors or a special interest group which claims to be holding bishops accountable. If he gave us better info we could give him a better answer. In most of these clergy cases at least since 2002 if there was an accusation it has been made public (look at Fr. Corapi’s situation for instance, all kinds of info floating around, immediate suspension, no proof or credibility required).

I agree. There isn’t enough information for us to adequately address the OP’s question. The limited information provided sounds like a civil, rather than criminal, case. There is too little information so it does us no good to recommend a course of action. It depends very much on the specifics. If we’re talking a convicted sex offender, or if he admitted wrong doing as part of a settlement, my advice would be very different than what I have previously provided.

I am vaguely aware of an accountability website but if it is the one I am thinking of, it was put together by a group like SNAP. I am not sure.

 

[PbloPicasso]

The state in which this ex-priest resides does not have a statute of limiations. The state and the diocese in which the crime occurred has covered up many of these crimes. I know priests in that state that were victims and before they were allowed to continue with ordination had to go through therapy.

The person I’m speaking of is in the United States and I have first hand knowledge about the rape and how it was covered up by the diocese. It was a crime. It was buried and dismissed. The victim was never contacted about the alleged 2000 suit. These are the facts. The ex-priests name is located on the following site: bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbydiocese.html

The victim of this crime has been in and out of therapy the rest of his life. It’s adversely affected every aspect of his life.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

The state in which this ex-priest resides does not have a statute of limiations. The state and the diocese in which the crime occurred has covered up many of these crimes. I know priests in that state that were victims and before they were allowed to continue with ordination had to go through therapy.

The person I’m speaking of is in the United States and I have first hand knowledge about the rape and how it was covered up by the diocese. It was a crime. It was buried and dismissed. The victim was never contacted about the alleged 2000 suit. These are the facts. The ex-priests name is located on the following site: bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbydiocese.html

The victim of this crime has been in and out of therapy the rest of his life. It’s adversely affected every aspect of his life.

Who sued him, other victims? You might actually want to seek out competent legal advice to see what your options are.

I’m not a lawyer and I am not qualified to offer advice but here is what I’d do:

If there is a court record of the suit or perhaps some newspaper articles pertaining to this incident, I would bring that to the attention of the appropriate authority at his school. I wouldn’t repeat any specific allegations, like his crime against your friend. Without some evidence to back it up, it is possible he could turn around and sue for defamation. By alerting his employer, he is definitely going to be very, very angry and might try to strike back. I’d tread very carefully and ask a lawyer about what I could do. He does sound a like a potentially dangerous person, especially if there are multiple allegations against him. If the allegations against him are true, and he did commit rape, he deserves a lengthy prison term.

 

[PbloPicasso]

The priest admitted to making a pass on the seminarian. He was not relieved of his duties but placed as pastor of another country parish where his name is spoken of highly. The high school students never came forward. But they did tell the seminarian after he found out the priest used to be located at a catholic school. This occurred in the late 70s and early 80s. The confirmed victim, a seminarian, went on a weekend trip, naive, not thinking the priest was like that and went to sleep at a high school seminary/bishop’s living site. He’s slept at a rectory before and thought nothing of it.

The molestation occurred whlie the seminarian was sleeping. When the seminarian woke up he found the priest’s hands in an area it didn’t belong. The boy froze for a few minutes (he said it felt like an eternity). The seminarian jumped up and went to the bathroom to wash his hands and make a decision, then he went to the living room where he waited until morning - very confused and in shock. He could barely move frozen in shock. Everything was going in slow motion and he was shaking and stunned at the same time. The next morning he jumped on his motorcycle and laid it down because he was so nervous. His whole world had just come unravled. His faith was shattered. He felt like the celibacy was a lie that really lead to some sort of tainted sexuality. He left and went back to the seminary and in shock didn’t tell anyone at first. However, he began asking questions to other seminarians that told him the priest was gay and that everyone knew. the seminarian told them he had no idea and was still in shock over what happened. This seminarian’s life has been up and down his entire life afterwards. He left the Church some years later and eventually returned after a couple of decades or so. That’s all I can say without giving out names and places.

I know protestant stories like this as well. This is not an attack on the Church but the way things were and seemingly still are managed to cover up the trash. It hurts people’s faith and justice must play out not only in the next world, but this one as well. At least that makes since to me.

 

[swariffin]

Yes, it can mean they are not guilty. The reason they might chose this option, even if innocent, might be something as simple as the defendant wanting to avoid a long, costly trial process and the possibility of bad press and having their name dragged through the mud. Accusations, especially of this nature, take on a life of their own and sometimes never go away. A defendant might just want to get on with their life and so agree to pay a sum of money to get it all over with.

Thanks for your reply. You remind me of Michael Jackson. I don’t think that Mike was guilty, because the parents of the “supposed” victim decided to take the money. First, my symphaty was for the supposed victim. But, when learning that the parents decided to take the money, carrying the consequencies of the boy who might have a permanent impact (if it was true), I changed my mind. If my boy got molested by Mike, I would never stop until I see him behind bars. Forget about the phrase that Jesus ask us to forgive, forget the things he offered. Sometimes the press could be misleading anyway.