Today's game, the last in the series, is for adults only, perhaps a couple of touring empty-nesters out with an opinionated, Novus-Ordo sister-in-law along for the ride, but certainly NO RUG-RATS ALLOWED! Our case consists largely of direct quotations from bylined newspaper articles printed in the "Detroit News (DN)" and "The Macomb Daily (MD)." (Click here to review the rules of play.)
So, ladies and gentlemen, start your engines, whip out your barf bags -- you'll need 'em today -- and begin reading case # 4:
A woman sues a sede priest "claiming he forced her to have sexual relations while counseling her and that she became pregnant. DN" In her claim, she says the priest "used deception, religious duress and intimidation to force her to engage in sex about a month after she sought his help...According to the suit, [the woman] said the assaults started a month after she began seeing [the priest] for religious and psychological counseling...Her problems stemmed from being sexually abused as a child, family problems and suicidal tendencies. MD" She also claims the priest "forced her to resume the affair...after she became pregnant and had an abortion. DN" The woman "said she became emotionally depressed after she became pregnant and [the priest] 'was relieved when the fetus was aborted...'DN" One newspaper account reports, "The suit was filed two years after [the priest] was released from prison to a halfway house after serving 17 months for involuntary manslaughter. MD" (The "manslaughter charge [stemmed] from the traffic death of a 6-year-old girl...DN" The sede priest "was speeding ... when he lost control of his car, veered up an embankment and struck and killed [the] 6-year-old...who was with her mother waiting outside their disabled car for a tow truck. MD" Another newspaper article reveals that the priest "has received 10 speeding tickets [during the previous five years], including one violation for driving 105 mph in a 55-mph zone...according to the Secretary of State's Office records. His driver's license is currently under three suspensions for failing to pay speeding fines...and he has 10 points on his driving record, records show. MD" ) The suit is "settled out of court" about three years after the relationship began "for $90,000 DN," which the priest's sponsoring sede "parish" pays. About a year and a half after the settlement, a newspaper account notes that the woman "is battling to collect a $100,000 settlement an ex-clergyman agreed to pay her after she accused him in a lawsuit of getting her pregnant... However, [the priest], who court records indicate denied forcing the woman into a sexual relationship, has not paid the $100,000 agreed to in a mediation settlement DN," which took place after the "parish" settled. The woman's attorney "said [the priest] never intended to pay, choosing instead to declare bankruptcy and leave the state. DN"Consider that after the lawsuit, this sacrilegious deadbeat dropped out of sight and the woman's lawyer had to hire private investigators to try in vain to find him. Consider that he later reappeared in New England at an independent chapel. After he was outed, a board member explained, according to the "Roslindale-West Roxbury Transcript on Townonline.com," that "during the hiring, he and the board consulted with priests from around the country who recommended [the scumbag]." Consider also that this man is still acting as a priest-in-good-standing in Sedelandia. He flies way under the radar, but has been reported to have attended a recent priests' retreat out West, and a number of years ago was notably photographed with a group of well known sede clergy at a priestly jubilee in sunny California. You may also determine whether all his future travel money should be sent to the woman. Remember: unlike the unjust real world, there's no statute of limitations or bankruptcy protection in the Travelers' Tribunal.
SURELY THE PRIESTLY ENABLERS DESERVE PUNISHMENT, TOO! HOW MUCH DO YOU WANT TO BET THAT ONE OF THESE SEDE CREEPS ADVISED THIS GOB-OF-SPIT TO FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY TO ESCAPE HIS FINANCIAL OBLIGATION?
What a bunch of feminist crap. This priest "forced" her to commit sin with him? How? Did he hold a gun to her head? Strong-arm her? No. As far as I can tell he only talked her into it. And she agreed. So why is she suing him for ninety grand? Because the feminist laws of this country allow her to, and it's a quick and dirty way to get rich.
ReplyDeleteDon't misunderstand me. I'm not defending this priest's disgraceful behavior, but this woman sounds just as bad as he is.
I forgot to ask. Do we have any other proof the priest coerced her (in whatever way) apart from the sole word of someone who thought she would gain $90,000 from the accusations? And does the priest enjoy any presumption of innocence from these accusations?
ReplyDeleteIf you read the news reports carefully, you will also see that the priest agreed to a separate settlement for $100 K (which he apparently has not paid). Would an innocent man settle?
ReplyDeleteIs this a trick question? Of course he would settle. Innocent people settle all the time when the corrupt legal system is against them. I believe McDonald's settled with the woman who spilled coffee in her lap.
DeleteMaybe you can explain why you think an innocent man wouldn't settle?
No one can speak with certitude about what happened except the priest and this young woman. "Forced" by the way is a polite term to describe a rape. A little too polite IMO.
ReplyDeleteAn accusation of sexual misconduct is so severe that ordinarily the accused should be afforded a certain presumption of innocence. What is certain is that an abortion occurred. Why? In this day and age tales are legion about the anti-male bias in family courts. If the woman in question had loose morals and was having relations with other men it would have been easy to finger any one of them and go through paternity tests. Then the real father of that child would have had to support it through toil. That would be an easier path than to finger a priest ex post facto.
I tend to strongly believe the woman in question is speaking the truth. She is not without guilt here let's be clear. No extenuating circumstances can ever justify abortion. If the priest spoke the truth and she is lying then the priest is a walking living saint. His refusal to follow speed limits which resulted in another death would indicate that he thinks the rules should not apply to him. But that's par for the course in Tradistan.
No one's using any polite terms here, and if anyone is, please stop. We're all talking straight business. If the accusation had been rape, rape would have been stated. But no, instead we get feminist mumbo-jumbo about "religious duress and intimidation", which means nothing. As I said, if this priest had used physical violence or some weapon to compel this woman to sin with him, that would have been made clear. Instead we get feminist doublespeak and accusations of crime based on nothing.
DeleteThe affair and abortion seem to have been real. I'm not questioning those. But what I am questioning is the lawsuit and the duress. She just said that so she could get $90,000 without having to work. Does anyone beg to differ? Craig, you want to backpedal on that one?
If the big shots in the sede universe read this blog, please realize that it's stories of misbehavior and unaccountability that has sandbagged your cause and hampered it. St John Crystantom (sp)?? maybe saw you guys when he said the floor of hell is littered with the skulls of rotten priests and bishops.
ReplyDeleteAnon 5:04 PM, you must be a man. Yes, I beg to differ. I know that men can smell a weak, lonely, somewhat unstable woman in difficulty a mile away & can make her feel safe & loved in his arms. One thing leads to another. She didn't really want to do it, but in a moment (& that's all it takes - just a moment) of weakness she fell for his BS. He loved that he had conquered. Makes him feel manly. If he said he's pay, then make him pay up. He knew he did wrong. Or at least he did more wrong than she did. They were both messed up people, but he was a man who should have been the protector, and a priest to boot. Instead he turned out to be a predator. He bears more responsibility, much more. Pay up.
ReplyDeletePay up for what? Yes, he took advantage of her, but she consented. He didn't rape her. What does he owe her for?
DeleteSorry - that should be 5:04 AM
ReplyDeleteAlso I'd like to add that that woman will pay in her own way.
The law and society recognize that authority figures, like priests, teachers, counselors, physicians etc., can exercise a disproportionate influence over the will of susceptible individuals; consequently, these people are held to a higher standard to protect the clients they are supposed to serve. Tradistan is generally peopled with ignorant, helpless souls who succumb to psychological violence of all sorts inflicted by unsupervised, unaccountable clergy. No person of sound mind would have remained in the cult after the 2009 school scandal, yet a number did, so it isn't difficult to imagine how a troubled young woman could fall prey to a priest who himself was reeling from the effects of serving time in prison. The law and society usually stay out of it when the only complaint is about separating people from their hard-earned dollars and frightening them with superstitions like "una cum Masses."
ReplyDeleteThe facts presented in the case are sufficient to play the game, as all these comments prove. However, let us just say that the priest's sponsoring organization came within a gnat's whisker of losing everything. They (and their insurer) got off VERY cheap at $90K and whatever the fees they paid for the defense.
Since you are familiar with the particulars of the case, was there some sort of emotional blackmail/pressure or was it genuinely magnamanious behavior on the victim's part that prevented the sponsoring organization from losing everything? Failing to press an advantage like this means the victim here let the cancer live to hurt others.
ReplyDeleteLet us just say that discovery was not complete.
DeleteTo “original” Anonymous (July 13, 3:28 A.M.): The article was about THE MISDEEDS OF A PRIEST, not about “feminist crap.” And whether the woman “consented” or not (or was “partially to blame” or not), the priest was TOTALLY to blame. By ANY yardstick, he is an amoral, immoral scumbag, who has both adultery and an abortion on his conscience (not to mention, killing an innocent child while speeding). These are FACTS, not “feminist crap.”
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, your comments were so ANAL that they deserve a FULL ARTICLE in response, not just an abbreviated “comment.” Therefore, please tune in to Lay Pulpit’s latest article for that response.