San Diego priest who pleaded guilty to sexual battery finds new home at Oklahoma parish

[cleanhippie]

Fr. Jose Alexis Davila was convicted of inappropriately touching a 19-year-old woman in San Diego in 2011. Like most priests who have been caught or convicted of sex acts, Davila went to another church. The problem, however, is no one at the church was told about his crimes.

When the church of the Blessed Sacrament in Lawton, Oklahoma was introduced to Davila they were told only that “he has pastoral experience in the United States” but nothing about his criminal past or even the name of his previous church. None of the members hand any idea he was convicted for groping a teenager, according to KFOR News.

“We’re very alarmed by this,” said David Clohessy, executive director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. “This is precisely the pattern that’s been in the Catholic Church for decades and it’s amazingly irresponsible.”

Following Davila’s conviction, the church decided he was worthy of being reinstated and “fit to minister” to the public again. His sentence from the judge was three years probation and 150 hours of community service.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/san-diego-priest-who-pleaded-guilty-to-sexual-battery-finds-new-home-at-oklahoma-parish/

Another day, another rapist priest protected by the RCC.

[trotsky]

1. "precisely the pattern that’s been in the Catholic Church for decades"

Undoubtedly longer. The teachings that priests are acting in persona Christi, and that the church reigns supreme are very old. Those together are a poisonous combination that leads to the behavior we see even today.

[Cartoonist]

2. Centuries, not decades.

With no sign of change.

[struggle4progress]

3. To what facts did he actually plead?

Misdemeanor sexual battery in California can include touching somebody on the butt

Did he pat the 19-year-old on the rear? Did he grab her breast? Did he shove his hand down her pants?

Exactly what act was associated with his 2012 plea?

[cleanhippie]

4. I'm sure you'll Google-galop the links shortly.

[struggle4progress]

5. Think what you like. I'd like to know: to what facts did he actually plead?

[cleanhippie]

6. Google not working today?

[Lordquinton]

7. Arguing the definition? Attempting to blame the victim?

Again? Statisticly he did much worse than what he's charged with, always gets pleaded down, more so because he's a priest, and this is almost certainly not his first offence, just the one they couldn't sweep under the rug.

[struggle4progress]

8. As far as I can tell, he was originally charged in 2012 with misdemeanor sexual battery

(which can mean a wide range of things), pleaded guilty to misdemeanor sexual battery, was awarded three years probation and community service at the time (as opposed to a possible maximum 18 months jail time), and was promptly reinstated at the San Diego parish in 2012

Press accounts from 2012 indicate he said the touching was accidental. I haven't found any detailed reporting on what battery was actually alleged. "Battery" can consist of any unwanted physical contact; in California, "sexual battery" can include (say) touching another person's buttocks. What actually happened matters, of course: did his hand brush her behind, or did he grab her breast?

The actual facts cannot be inferred from your unsupported statistical opinions

[edhopper]

9. You remind me of a now banned DUer

who posted stories from Russia Today and when others accused him of being a pro-Putin shill, kept claiming he was only reporting the "facts".

I have yet to see you do anything but defend the Church's handling of rapist Priests.

Just being accurate here.

[struggle4progress]

10. I'd still like to know: to what facts did he actually plead?

[MichiganVote]

30. Here you go and btw-wow, took me like a whole two seconds.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Priest-Removed-from-Oklahoma-Archidiocese-Due-to-Criminal-Past-377259291.html

Whew, hard work.

[struggle4progress]

32. ... He has not been convicted of sex crimes. In 2015, a judge approved Davila's petition

to have his plea withdrawn and his guilty verdict set aside ...

UPDATE: Oklahoma priest with criminal past removed from parish
POSTED 8:33 PM, APRIL 26, 2016
BY LORNE FULTONBERG
UPDATED AT 10:39PM, APRIL 27, 2016

Thanks for the link

[struggle4progress]

35. BTW your link is dated "12:07 PM PDT on Apr 27, 2016"

which would have been about 3:07 PM EDT on Apr 27 whereas my post, to which you were responding was dated "Apr 27, 2016, 01:45 PM" (EDT) -- over an hour before your link was posted in San Diego

[Lordquinton]

11. You have a lot to say on issues you are ignorant about

Go turn your googling to the matters of sexual crimes and rape statistics and come back horrified. The fact that this man was actually convicted means he did something serious.

What he plead to is certainly much less than what actually happened, they got it down to a vague charge in the books so people like you can claim he accidentally brushed his hands against a teenager's butt and got his life ruined for it.

[rug]

12. What's your evidence for your last sentence?

[Lordquinton]

14. What does LGBTQIA stand for?

[rug]

15. What does LGBTQ+ stand for?

You've got no evidence.

[Lordquinton]

16. And you still can't answer the question.

Run along.

[rug]

17. That's a pretty stupid thing to say when you can't produce evidence for your surly opinion.

Next time just say you can't and spare everyone this ridiculous display.

[rug]

19. I just did.

Your first paragraph is exactly why. Take your bigoted disruptive bullshit to someone who actually gives you credence. If you need help I'll send you a link.

And if you think typos mean something, don't type "sec".

[Major Nikon]

23. The apologia in this thread is a pretty good place to start

[rug]

24. The lazy assumptions in this thread are a good place to start.

But the question is about the evidence that supports these. assumptions.

[Major Nikon]

25. So you think it's a lazy assumption that another RCC priest got away with rape?

As I said, the evidence is right here in this thread. Try actually reading what it says.

What he plead to is certainly much less than what actually happened, they got it down to a vague charge in the books so people like you can claim he accidentally brushed his hands against a teenager's butt and got his life ruined for it.

If you need more evidence beyond what's in this thread, try actually reading the OP.

“You don’t condemn a person for a maybe one-time offense,” said Fr. Michael Chapman, claiming that he believed Davila who promised the inappropriate touching of the teenager was an accident. “We don’t have a congregation of saints, we have a congregation of sinners, including the lead sinner, who is the priest.”

[rug]

26. Maybe you should try actually reading the posts.

Now , for the lazy assumptions without evidence.

1. What is the original charge?

2. What did he actually plead to?

3. Where is the evidence that it is "certainly" much less than what actually happened?

Never mind answering because there is no evidence to support that statement. Any more than there is to support the opinion that follows it.

Try posting some actual facts - you do prefer facts rather than spewing out beliefs without evidence, don't you? - rather than regurgitated targeted biases.

[Major Nikon]

27. No, I'm still pretty sure you need to read the OP

And this time not selectively.

The factual evidence is the victim says the former priest forced his finger into her vagina.

The factual evidence is that RCC apologists are claiming that never happened as is being implied by other RCC apologists right here in this thread.

So it's just not really that complicated. Since you can't provide a direct answer to the last question, I'll make it simpler for you.

Do you think the victim is lying?

Now while I'm quite sure you won't even attempt to provide a straight answer to a straight question (as usual), my answer to this question is emphatically, no, I'm quite sure the victim is telling the truth. I'm also quite sure that RCC apologists are banking on him not actually being convicted of the crimes in which he was actually accused in order to imply that either ....

A) he did absolutely nothing wrong, or

B) if he did do something wrong like he actually swore under oath he should be forgiven because it probably just wasn't all that bad

[rug]

28. And I'm pretty sre you need to do some critical thinking.

The factual evidence is the victim says the former priest forced his finger into her vagina.

The actual fact is that an allegation is an allegation, not "factual evidence". Is that a novel concept to you?

The factual evidence is that RCC apologists are claiming that never happened as is being implied by other RCC apologists right here in this thread.

Now you're letting your mask slip. Read what you wrote again. Is the accuracy of the prior statement at all dependent on "RCC apologists"? That is as ludicrous a notion as saying your comments are the result of anti-Catholic bigotry. Shall we traverse that path?

Do you think the victim is lying?

Do you know one way or the other? Or do you simply believe without examining and cross-examing the claim? Beyond that, I have no interest in your opinions because they are as predictable as they are trite

So, go ahead. State why you are "quite sure". Maybe you have some other way of knowing.

And here's your third option:

C) You are utterly blinded in your conclusions by your own prejudices. Speaking strictly as a lawyer and not as a Catholic, I tell you directly: you'd be a shitty juror, a/k/a a judge of the facts.

[Major Nikon]

31. I'm pretty sure most RCC apologists would claim as much

The actual fact is that an allegation is an allegation, not "factual evidence". Is that a novel concept to you?

It's a fact that the victim is a victim, and it's also a fact that the victim made an "allegation" that the former RCC priest forcibly penetrated her vagina. Is English not your first language, because I'm pretty sure most critical thinkers just wouldn't have as much problem with that statement as you seem to be having.

Now you're letting your mask slip. Read what you wrote again. Is the accuracy of the prior statement at all dependent on "RCC apologists"? That is as ludicrous a notion as saying your comments are the result of anti-Catholic bigotry. Shall we traverse that path?

My statement was completely accurate. Are you really saying it's not a fact the victim says the former RCC priest forcibly penetrated her vagina? Because that's a pretty good example of some warped RCC apologia if there ever was one.

Do you know one way or the other? Or do you simply believe without examining and cross-examing the claim? Beyond that, I have no interest in your opinions because they are as predictable as they are trite

So, go ahead. State why you are "sure". Maybe you have some other way of knowing.

And here's yor third option:

C) You are utterly blinded in your conclusions by your own prejudices. Speaking strictly as a lawyer and not as a Catholic, I tell you directly: you'd be a shitty juror, a/k/a a judge of the facts.

Blah, blah, blah.

As fully predicted, you will not give a straight answer to a straight question while demanding your own answers. Your apologia speaks for itself, again as fully predicted.

Speaking strictly as a lawyer

I wish I had a nickle for every time a DUer anonymously claimed to be a lawyer, but isn't. Not saying you aren't, but you know, just sayin' it's a fact that your claim is just an allegation and there's really no reason at all to believe you.

[rug]

33. I'm pretty sur most anti-Catholic bigots would agree with you.

I take it you're grossly ignorant of the basics of criminal law.

It's a fact that the victim is a victim

The fact is that whether there is or is not a victim at all is determined by proof at trial. Another concept alien to you, I see. Rather than return your insult, just ponder that until you get a clue.

As to your next paragraph, go back and read exactly what I said instead of trying to deflect into something that was not said. Really, a very poor tactic.

Regarding,

Blah, blah, blah.

I rest my case.

BTW, it's spelled "nickel".

[Major Nikon]

34. That's pretty rich, even by your low standards, rug

Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 01:32 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm a biased anti-Catholic bigot for actually believing one of thousands of RCC priests' rape victims, but you're not an RCC apologist for once again breaking your back carrying the RCC's water by going to bat for another RCC rapist.

That's some hard core critical thunkin' for ya.

I take it you're grossly ignorant of the basics of criminal law.

I just take such statements as a critical backlog of your fecal material. This isn't a court of law. I asked you a simple question of whether or not you believed the victim and you can't give a straight answer or even admit the victim is a victim. Very telling that.

BTW, it's spelled "nickel".

Pro-tip: When engaging in a lame ass grammar flame, it's best not to include an obvious spelling error in your subject line.

[truebrit71]

45. Fabulous!

[Major Nikon]

20. He was originally charged for forcing his finger into the vagina of his victim

Regardless of how he was charged, pleaded or whatever, that's not someone anyone should want in such a position, which is why he is no longer a priest and never should be.

[struggle4progress]

21. According to the article and video

here, that was indeed what Skeels claimed -- but the prosecutors by early Jan 2012 decided they didn't have adequate proof and reduced the charge level to misdemeanor sexual battery. Davila pleaded not guilty at that time. His guilty plea to sexual battery came later, in April 2012

Any sexual penetration, by any object including a finger, is a felony under California penal code section 289

So prosecutors' charge reduction to misdemeanor occurred prior to any possible plea bargain, and they dropped the sexual penetration allegation for lack of evidence prior to any possible plea bargain

[Major Nikon]

22. I'm pretty sure everyone gets that another RCC rapist got off with a lesser charge

So I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep repeating what an actual sexual predator by any definition didn't get convicted for, as if because he didn't get deservedly convicted for rape, that means it didn't happen.

Rape is a difficult crime to prosecute because the perpetrators generally aren't stupid enough to allow witnesses to watch them do it. So ultimately it boils down to one person's word against another. So just because courts are bound by what can be proved rather than what they know, doesn't mean anyone else has to play dumb. Ultimately even the diocese didn't buy his bullshit.

[struggle4progress]

37. Our justice system usually depends on the notion "proof beyond reasonable doubt"

which can help us avoid lynchings and other miscarriages of justice resulting from decisions based on rumors, bigotry, and similar inadequacies

We do the best we can: not every crime is successfully prosecuted; not every charge is true; witnesses have been known to lie; guilty parties have been known to proclaim innocence; false confessions occur also

[Major Nikon]

38. That doesn't mean sexual predators like this one have to be provided easy access to their victims

The diocese ultimately made the right choice by kicking this predator to the curb albeit after the light was shined on this cockroach.

[struggle4progress]

39. And bigoted lynch mobs often dislike that subtle distinction

between "accusation" and "proof"

[Major Nikon]

40. Nice touch pretending RCC rapist priests are just as oppressed as murdered AA men

[struggle4progress]

41. .

[Major Nikon]

42. Sure, just like Bill Cosby

[Goblinmonger]

13. Which of those would it be OK for him to have done

and then be passed on to another parish without informing them?

[Major Nikon]

44. It doesn't matter because he's being "lynched" by "anti-Catholic bigots"

Nothing to see here, just move along.

[truebrit71]

46. The level of apologia in this thread is truly sickening...

[Major Nikon]

47. Imagine what victims must go through

The congregation of this rapist priest actually ganged up on the victim and her family trying to get her to drop the charges.

From the outside looking in, it's unbelievable how the RCC was able to conceal so much rape for so many years. But then you see how so many people just can't wait to get in line to defend the rapists. It reminds me of just how fanatical cult members are about their beliefs that reality just can't penetrate.

[MichiganVote]

29. So if he didn't do anything "wrong", why not inform the receiving parish of his probation?

Right, that would be because he is worthy of being reinstated despite a conviction-so says a church. So much for the kind of moral guidance people deserve from an organization that uses the blind faith of its worshipers to conceal abuses by the clergy.

There are errant or immoral people in any organization, but the Catholic church has allowed the offenders to set the norm. Another case of the lowest bar ever...

[struggle4progress]

36. What we seem to know so far

The OP headline "pleaded guilty to sexual battery" is inaccurate: according to the article linked here, he pleaded guilty to battery, not to sexual battery, but that guilty plea has since been set aside

A young woman seems to have accused him of touching the skin of her buttocks, of groping her breast, and of inserting his finger into her vagina. Prosecutors eventually decided not to pursue the felony penetration charge but did pursue three misdemeanor counts of sexual battery that could have resulted in up to 18 months imprisonment. He originally pleaded not guilty to those charges. Later he pleaded guilty to one count of battery (not sexual battery) and was sentenced to three years probation with 100 hours of community service. That guilty plea was apparently set aside last year

The OP's comment "another rapist priest" seems inaccurate, since it appears rape was never alleged

[Major Nikon]

43. This is what RCC rape apologia looks like. Revictimizing the victim.

[center][font color="black" size=7 face="face"]Friends Defend Local Priest Accused Of Sexual Assault[/font][/center]

Friends of a local priest accused in a sexual assault confronted the accuser's family on Wednesday in an effort to get the charge against him dropped.

Supporters of Jose Davila came to St. Joseph's Catholic Church in downtown San Diego to confront the 20-year-old accuser's mother, who was supposed to be attending a prayer group.

...

When the accuser's mother did not show up, Morales and several other friends of Davila confronted the accuser's brother instead. They wanted to know why such strong accusations would be made against Davila, the associate pastor of St. Jude's Shrine in Southcrest. Davila is also known as Father Alexis.

...

Police told 10News Davila admitted to something taking place with the woman inside his home on New Year's Day and turned himself in. He later posted bail.

http://www.10news.com/news/friends-defend-local-priest-accused-of-sexual-assault