Abusive priest hides quietly in plain sight, retires to New Prague

[dimbear]

dimbear: even before you click, strong stomachs only. I know everybody's tired of these cases, sick and tired, but this is an extraordinary one. Extraordinary for bad.


http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/11/11/catholic-church/abusive-priest-hid-in-plain-sight-for-years-retired-quietly-to-new-prague
***********
The boy was about 9 or 10 years old. As he climbed into bed, he asked the priest a question: Are you going to molest me, like my relative does when he asks me to spend the night?
The answer was yes.
What happened that night remained secret. The priest, the Rev. Clarence Vavra, stayed in ministry and served in 16 parishes in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis before retiring in 2003. He's never been publicly identified as an abuser. There are no records of any police reports or lawsuits. No victims have come forward. Vavra admitted in a May 1995 psychological evaluation that he had attempted to anally rape the South Dakota boy. The report was stored in the vicar general's filing cabinet at the chancery.
***********
dimbear: and on and on and on.

[Dorian Gray]

1. Very disturbed priest

and very infuriating that the church moved him from place to place without ever reporting him to the authorities.

The poor children who were attacked by him.

And carrying on a verbally sexual relationship with a serial killer? WTF????

[trotsky]

2. The worst part is, this is such a familiar story now...

that we must face the fact that incredible numbers of people at different levels in the RCC knew of cases like this and chose to do something worse than doing nothing: they aided and abetted it. This represents such a significant moral failing that it has undermined any moral authority anyone thought the church might have.

I have no doubt that virtually every DUer, when faced with evidence that a child was being molested, would engage the authorities and protect the child. Yet for these real life incidents, we see time and again that bishops, priests, and sometimes even members of the congregation would choose defense of the institution (and protection of the dogma that the priest is above man's law). This is quite simply abhorrent and that some would choose to continue to defend the institution, or try to minimize the uniqueness of abuse within it with incongruous appeals to the fact that pedophilia happens elsewhere, really makes me sick.

[Fix The Stupid]

3. "I have no doubt that virtually every DUer, when faced with evidence that a child was being....

"I have no doubt that virtually every DUer, when faced with evidence that a child was being molested, would engage the authorities and protect the child"

I have doubts about this statement...no offense.

I think we've seen this question somewhat asked in the past - something like, "if god told you to murder your child, would you?"

No believer would really answer the question...

It's sad to see the lengths people will go to defend their church. Same situation with the above statement.

How many fundamentalists would choose their church over the child? I think we all know a few people would side with the church...

Sadly.