Abuse Cover-up Alleged

[jgredline]

Another alleged cover up....When will these end.. sigh

Catholic Abuse Cover-up Alleged


St. Louis - A priest signed a written confession in 1978 admitting to sexual abuse of boys, but the Archdiocese of St. Louis allowed him to continue serving parishes for more than a decade after that, a victims' rights group said Thursday.

The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, or SNAP, planned an afternoon news conference to announce the settlement of a lawsuit against the Rev. Donald "Duck" Straub over abuse that happened in 1973 and 1974, when Straub, then a seminary student, was working at Resurrection Parish in St. Louis. The victim was 13 when the abuse began.

SNAP officials said that in 1978, parents of other children at the parish came forward alleging sexual abuse, prompting a confession signed by Straub and witnessed by Bishop John Wurm, who is now deceased.

"I acknowledge the allegations are true," Straub wrote.

Straub, now 58 and reportedly living in St. Louis County, did not have a listed phone number. A spokeswoman for the archdiocese declined comment.

Despite the confession, Straub remained an active priest through at least 1991. After two years in Kansas, he returned to St. Louis but was barred from performing any duties as a priest, St. Louis Monsignor Richard Stika said. Straub was defrocked in 2005.

It was not clear if Straub faced allegations of wrongdoing in Kansas. An official with the Catholic Diocese of Dodge City did not return a phone call seeking comment.

At the time of the 1978 confession, the archbishop did what he thought was best based on understanding of abuse at that time, Stika said, noting that Straub was sent away for counseling and treatment.

"It was the advice of the medical people involved in the program that he could be returned to the ministry," Stika said. Now, if a priest is diagnosed as a sexual predator, "there is no cure. They're dealt with by trying to protect society from individuals with this disorder."

SNAP officials said Straub faces allegations from at least six other accusers. Two allege abuse of children at parishes after the 1978 confession.

SNAP director David Clohessy called the 1978 document "by far the oldest and clearest evidence that the archdiocese knew about a predator and kept silent for this long.

"It's one thing to say 30 years ago there were allegations against this guy," Clohessy said. "It's another to have a signed confession by him and yet they kept him in ministry for roughly another decade and it took them almost 20 years after that before he was defrocked."

The victim's attorney, Ken Chackes, said the man filed suit in October. A settlement was reached April 27. Terms were not disclosed. The man also contacted police last year about the past abuse. A police spokesman declined comment on the criminal investigation.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/217/story_21781_1.html

 

[tim-from-pa]

This is the kind of junk that spoils it for all churches--- this is where it all started. I won't get off again on the "background checks" I mentioned to you proposed at our church. But this is why it's proposed.

But the difference is that here the Catholics knew this was going on and covered it up. That's different than having this come as a surprise because you assume somebody is a Christian or repented. However, if this happened with one of my teachers, I'd be the first to kick them out.

Moral of the story: It seems those pushing background checks don't differentiate between knowing about it and covering it up vs. an isolated incident that takes people by surprise. They lump both in the same legal boat.

It's the same mentality that these "zero tolerance" people have that equate a little girl that brings a plastic knife in her lunch box to school compared to a teen that brings a 38 magnum. They lost all ability to discern. I never saw such an abysmally stupid generation.

 

[jgredline]

This is the kind of junk that spoils it for all churches--- this is where it all started. I won't get off again on the "background checks" I mentioned to you proposed at our church. But this is why it's proposed.

But the difference is that here the Catholics knew this was going on and covered it up. That's different than having this come as a surprise because you assume somebody is a Christian or repented. However, if this happened with one of my teachers, I'd be the first to kick them out.

Moral of the story: It seems those pushing background checks don't differentiate between knowing about it and covering it up vs. an isolated incident that takes people by surprise. They lump both in the same legal boat.

It's the same mentality that these "zero tolerance" people have that equate a little girl that brings a plastic knife in her lunch box to school compared to a teen that brings a 38 magnum. They lost all ability to discern. I never saw such an abysmally stupid generation.

Tim, Very well said and I could not agree with you more...The cover up is just as bad if not worse than the sin, because it leads to more of the same type of sin and to fair, I have seen this in all churches.......

 

[Guest]

This is the kind of junk that spoils it for all churches--- this is where it all started. I won't get off again on the "background checks" I mentioned to you proposed at our church. But this is why it's proposed.

But the difference is that here the Catholics knew this was going on and covered it up. That's different than having this come as a surprise because you assume somebody is a Christian or repented. However, if this happened with one of my teachers, I'd be the first to kick them out.

Moral of the story: It seems those pushing background checks don't differentiate between knowing about it and covering it up vs. an isolated incident that takes people by surprise. They lump both in the same legal boat.

It's the same mentality that these "zero tolerance" people have that equate a little girl that brings a plastic knife in her lunch box to school compared to a teen that brings a 38 magnum. They lost all ability to discern. I never saw such an abysmally stupid generation.

If you do not mind, I see a little difference. The proposal for background checks is to PREVENT.

And like it or not, insurance companies do require them.

 

[Vic C.]

And like it or not, insurance companies do require them.

Not all require them. Some do and some offer insurance at "discounted" rates if checks are instituted. Some may not offer liability insurance unles they are provided background checks.

 

[jgredline]

I think context has allot to do with this....For example..At my church, nobody is allowed to serve in a ministry that has not been a member for at least 2 years....We just hired a full time lawyer who will be handling the legalities of both school and church and this man was put through the ringer because nobody knew him. We checked him over with a fine tooth comb....

and even at that nobody has a ministry all to them self. Everybody has someone to be accountable too...

Now if someone has been in a position of say day care or second grade bible teacher and they have been doing it for say 5 years with no problems etc, then there is no need for any background check...Why? because regardless of what this person may have in his past, this person is a new creation in Christ...wE CAN'T loose site of the fact that this is church....

Another thing, we do is give people a certain amount of time...Elders, deacons, teachers, must take a year off every 4 years...The Pastors being the only exception...so these positions keep getting rotated...It is great, because it keeps folks from getting burned out and helps keep pride in check....Just some of my quick thoughts

 

[tim-from-pa]

If you do not mind, I see a little difference. The proposal for background checks is to PREVENT.

And like it or not, insurance companies do require them.

And there is another problem with this. Does this mean that for now on repentant criminals and people with records cannot serve God "because something may happen"? I say to all folks, wake up! This is America, or at least it was.

I don't think people understand what our great nation was founded on with all this liberal thinking these days.... one is innocent until proven guilty. To "prevent" something from happening by making a person a suspect before anything happened is the antithesis of our supposed system.

What about if they were guilty? Well, they did their time otherwise they should not be running around. If this society is that bent on not believing a person can change, then I would have more respect if they just keep them locked up instead of leaving them out of jail. But once a person is left out, then that is a testimony that they paid their debt to society and are free to start a clean slate.

This is the opposite of branding somebody all their lives (and in a church of all places!) like a Salem witch-hunt. That is the epitome of self-righteousness "I'm better than you" that is totally sickening.

 

[tim-from-pa]

And to the rest, insurance companies, et al:

I think there should be tort laws that have lawsuits directed at the person responsible--- not the institution they happen to be inside at the time. To sue an institution is like suing a business because a rape occurred in its side alley one night. That's the same mentality.

There is another dangerous message here---- if we make institutions responsible, then that implies that we became a society where someone is always "over" us in authority. I don't know, but that again is the antithesis of the American way of thinking with its rugged individuality. I have the guts to take blame for something I do myself, and I would not blame the owner of the structure I happened to be in at the time---- but free-ride people I guess think otherwise.

I think we have Canaanites in the land that twisted our thinking the last generation.

 

[Guest]

And to the rest, insurance companies, et al:

I think there should be tort laws that have lawsuits directed at the person responsible--- not the institution they happen to be inside at the time. To sue an institution is like suing a business because a rape occurred in its side alley one night. That's the same mentality.

There is another dangerous message here---- if we make institutions responsible, then that implies that we became a society where someone is always "over" us in authority. I don't know, but that again is the antithesis of the American way of thinking with its rugged individuality. I have the guts to take blame for something I do myself, and I would not blame the owner of the structure I happened to be in at the time---- but free-ride people I guess think otherwise.

I think we have Canaanites in the land that twisted our thinking the last generation.

I would argue that "rugged individualism" is the anthithesis of the Gospel. There is nothing that I can do to earn my own salvation. There are not any works that I can do. In fact, my penalty was paid by another!!

Institutions need to be held responsible for actions where they are negligent.

Should an institution not have responsiblity for hiring someone?

This is why I believe that there should be seperationg of church and state - but for a much different reason than most who promote such an idea. I believe that the church should be a witness to the state - not involved with the state - and as such the state should not been involved with the church.

 

[jgredline]

And there is another problem with this. Does this mean that for now on repentant criminals and people with records cannot serve God "because something may happen"? I say to all folks, wake up! This is America, or at least it was.

I don't think people understand what our great nation was founded on with all this liberal thinking these days.... one is innocent until proven guilty. To "prevent" something from happening by making a person a suspect before anything happened is the antithesis of our supposed system.

What about if they were guilty? Well, they did their time otherwise they should not be running around. If this society is that bent on not believing a person can change, then I would have more respect if they just keep them locked up instead of leaving them out of jail. But once a person is left out, then that is a testimony that they paid their debt to society and are free to start a clean slate.

This is the opposite of branding somebody all their lives (and in a church of all places!) like a Salem witch-hunt. That is the epitome of self-righteousness "I'm better than you" that is totally sickening.

I could not agree more.....Good thing Jesus means we are saved by his grace and not the grace of man...........

 

[tim-from-pa]

I would argue that "rugged individualism" is the anthithesis of the Gospel. There is nothing that I can do to earn my own salvation. There are not any works that I can do. In fact, my penalty was paid by another!!

And which nations were the purveyors of the gospel message? 1) the ones that were rugged individualists that colonized or 2) the ones that have institutions and governments doing the thinking for them?

If it's the first one, then individualism is not against the gospel. An individualist realizes He is free in Christ to be his own person.

The topic this thread is about is the opposite of individual thinking, the way this society is going (and becoming like all the other common, mediocre nations)

 

[Guest]

And which nations were the purveyors of the gospel message? 1) the ones that were rugged individualists that colonized or 2) the ones that have institutions and governments doing the thinking for them?

If it's the first one, then individualism is not against the gospel. An individualist realizes He is free in Christ to be his own person.

The topic this thread is about is the opposite of individual thinking, the way this society is going (and becoming like all the other common, mediocre nations)

Neither choice. Salvation was not given to nations - but to the people. People who recognized their dependance upon a merciful God. Through the freedom we have in Christ we are bound to one another in service.

God seeks a people that are dependant upon Him.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Neither choice.

Study your history more, then. But I stand as an American, a nation called of God in my belief. And I hate to see this mindset ruin it all. Actually, I don't think it will. I think the Lord will come first, and these characters are speeding up their judgment.

 

[Veritas]

And which nations were the purveyors of the gospel message? 1) the ones that were rugged individualists that colonized or 2) the ones that have institutions and governments doing the thinking for them?

If it's the first one, then individualism is not against the gospel. An individualist realizes He is free in Christ to be his own person.

Well said, I agree. We are free in Christ, and America is a luminescent reflection of that freedom.

Salvation was not given to nations - but to the people. People who recognized their dependance upon a merciful God.

True. And we hear the melodious ring of that in our Declaration of Independence...

...When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume, among the Powers of the earth, the separate
and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God
entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires
that they should declare the causes which impel them to the
separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness.

...but even so, nations are involved in Jesus' plan...

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19

In his name the nations will put their hope." Matthew 12:21

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:14

...of course there is the implied discernment within the verses above that the nations are really made up of people... not governmental mandates and such.

Through the freedom we have in Christ we are bound to one another in service.

I don't believe that is forced on us. Rather, our individual freedom allows us to support ourselves in ruggedness with Christ, and then if we want (which we probably will if we are in Christ ;)) help others.

...wow, I'm a bit off track of the OP. But I'll say that I agree with tim_from_pa that there is a general lack of discernment in our culture. Loss of reason too.

 

[tim-from-pa]

I want to thank most of the posters here that they see where I am coming from. I think most can see that I would not put up with unrighteousness and use our freedoms as a means of skirting responsibility. On the other hand, this new "thought" that is out there really scares me. We already have in place means to deal with offenders but this culture thinks that they have to redefine everything.

On the Christian forum I was kicked off of, I brought this issue up and I had most people want to comply with this nonsense with the statement "I have nothing to hide" mentality. I started to suspect that they really needed to be born again because obviously they did not think there was anything they thought they needed saving from because their records are squeaky clean.

I even had a hurtful comment shot at me that because I stated this position that "I must be hiding something". I cannot understand such warped thinking. Yeah, and I could say that the next time that they want a private phone conversation that they are plotting the overthrow of the US government. When will this kind of thinking stop?

In my generation (the 60's), there was a name for this type of thinking: Paranoid schizophrenia. But I guess it's becoming the norm today.