VirtueOnline - News - Exclusives - CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of being a Pedophile

Exclusives : CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of being a Pedophile

Posted by David Virtue on 2006/4/3 21:20:00 (4143 reads)

CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of being a Pedophile
Former St. Paul's Priest Allegedly Renounces Orders then Retracts Confession

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org

SYRACUSE, NY (4/3/2006)--A retired Episcopal priest in the Diocese of Central New York who was accused of pedophilia by another priest, has apparently confessed his crimes and allegedly renounced his orders to Bishop Gladstone "Skip" Adams and Fr. John Martinicchio, Chairman of the sexual abuse, "Pastoral Response Team". However, he later retracted his confession. The bishop has allegedly threatened a presentment against him.

The priest who revealed the alleged sexual activities of the priest Fr. Ralph Johnson is Fr. David Bollinger, priest for 20 years at St. Paul's, Owego, NY. He himself has been inhibited by the bishop for alleged financial irregularities and for allegedly whistle blowing on Fr. Johnson.

Chris Peterson a vestryman at St. Paul's, Owego, NY, told VirtueOnline, that Johnson, now living in Gibson, PA got a visit recently by Bishop Adams and Fr. John Martinicchio, rector of Christ Church, Binghamton, where the priest allegedly confessed his crimes and renounced his orders during this meeting. This confession supports the allegations that were raised over two years ago by Fr. David Bollinger, then rector of St. Paul's.

Peterson wrote VirtueOnline saying that when a second person came forward with allegations of sexual misconduct of several decades ago, the Diocese of Central New York obtained the services of a forensic psychologist, who verified that the allegations were, in fact, true.

Bishop Adams and Father John Martinicchio, the head of the Diocesan Response Team, then visited Johnson, the accused priest, at his home in Gibson, Pennsylvania.

"Fr. Johnson signed a paper in which he relinquished his position as a priest in the Episcopal Church. It is not known whether this paper contained any explicit admission of guilt. But priests have three days in which to reconsider resignations. And Fr. Johnson rescinded his resignation within those three days. The Diocese is now working on a second paper, which, it is hoped, Fr. Johnson will sign. If not, we are told, the Diocese will then seek a Presentment against Fr Johnson," said the vestryman.

All parties concerned are receiving professional care at Diocesan Expense, said Peterson. "Damages are not being sought; merely, an acknowledgment from the Church that what happened, actually happened."

When I approached Fr. Martinicchio about what took place, VOL was told, "I have no comment. I am not going to discuss the situation." Bishop Adams did not respond immediately to an E-mail about the situation. But Ms. Kathleen McDaniel, Executive Assistant to the Bishop responded to the e-mail sent to Bishop Adams with a copy to VOL saying; "Sorry to have to bother you (bishop) with this. I was tempted to delete it. Then I was tempted to send a reply on your behalf and simply say, no." The bishop did not personally respond.

Later Bishop Adams did respond to VOL and said this: "Your inquiry is inappropriate and it would be correspondingly inappropriate for me to respond."

But Fr. David Bollinger the ousted priest from St. Paul's was under no such restriction. He told VOL, "I believe I have been inhibited as a punishment for trying to seek the truth about Johnson's alleged pedophile activities when I received an affidavit from one of 16 victims of my parish charging the former parish priest with sexual abuse."

Bollinger sent the signed complaint to the bishop and pastoral response team. As a result of doing this, and because he blew the whistle on the former parish priest, the bishop turned on Bollinger and inhibited him and then accused him of misusing his Discretionary Fund.

VirtueOnline revealed the name of the priest, Fr. Johnson and identified him as retired and living in Gibson, PA. VirtueOnline called the priest.

VIRTUEONLINE: "Fr. Johnson you have been identified as the priest at St. Paul's in Owego, NY who sexually abused some 16 boys in the 70s. Is that true?"

JOHNSON: "Not that I know of."

VIRTUEONLINE: A woman has stepped forward with evidence that you had a joint bank account with her son to cover up your sexual behavior? Is that true?

JOHNSON: "No way".

VIRTUEONLINE: "Fr. Bollinger, the current priest at the parish alleges that he has been inhibited because he exposed information about you to Bishop Gladstone "Skip" Adams? Why would the bishop go after him and not you?"

JOHNSON: "I don't know anything about this. Good luck with this." Johnson then hung up.

At the time the diocese said it had insufficient grounds to fully investigate the charges. But when another witness stepped forward earlier this year the diocese had no choice but to investigate the charges. While the issues related to the pedophile charges are closer to resolution at this time, the diocese has not yet rescinded the presentment against Fr. Bollinger.

PRESENTMENT ISSUED

But Bishop Adams had already taken the next step in his vendetta against Fr. David Bollinger. Following the November diocesan convention he moved against Fr. Bollinger and by decree of the Standing Committee inhibited him.

In a letter dated March 14, the Bishop handed down a presentment against Fr. Bollinger. The presentment means that Fr. Bollinger will now be tried by an ecclesiastical court. The diocese continues to maintain the veil of secrecy over the charges, claiming that they are doing so in order "to be fair and faithful to all persons involved." The letter further claims that the full disclosure of the presentment would "potentially prejudice the proceedings now before the Ecclesiastical Court."

The Standing Committee which issued the presentment is the same group that would not hear from the vestry (the leadership board) of St. Paul's, Owego, the parish where Fr. Bollinger served because to do so would prejudice their minds in the matter.

"I have been told by a member of clergy in the Diocese of Central NY that a member of the ecclesiastical court, the Rev. Dr. William Lutz, has said in a clergy meeting that he believes that Fr. Bollinger is guilty as charged. If this is what Fr. Lutz said, he would seem to have a prejudiced mind before the trial has even started. If so, this is just one more piece of an ever widening accumulation of evidence that the diocesan process toward removing Fr. Bollinger from his parish and potentially from the priesthood has been extremely flawed from the beginning," said Bollinger.

The inhibited priest recently filed a $4.35 million lawsuit against the bishop, diocese and former comptroller by his attorney David Goulding. The lawsuit names Bishop Skip Adams, the Diocese of Central NY and former comptroller Gael Sopchak as defendants.

A letter later arrived stating that Fr. Bollinger's inhibition has been extended for another 90 days. This makes it over a year since Fr. Bollinger was permitted to function as a priest.

Multiple sources told VirtueOnline that the diocese has hired one of the most expensive law firms in Syracuse to handle the lawsuit. Ironically this was the same diocese that could not afford to continue the ministry of the Thornfield Conference Center and tore it down. "In the past two years, our impoverished diocese has paid $30,000 for a forensic audit, hired a public relations firm and now an expensive law firm. As our bishop tells us, a budget is a theological statement, and the forensic audit, PR firm and expensive law firm speak volumes about the bankrupt theology of the Diocese of Central NY," said the source.

END

Social Bookmarking

The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

Poster	Thread
Liberty	Posted: 2006/4/4 0:50 Updated: 2006/4/4 0:50
Just can't stay away Joined: 2006/3/6 From: Posts: 105	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of "All parties concerned are receiving professional care at Diocesan Expense, said Peterson. "Damages are not being sought; merely, an acknowledgment from the Church that what happened, actually happened."" Then what happened doesn't really matter if it happened, one way or the other. Wherever you go in life that's where you'll be. If anyone should decide to tell the truth then we reserve the right to believe those who think they know the truth, or even falsely believe it is the truth. We can't handle the truth so just get to the facts. Perception is believing, so maybe the whistle blower actually had a flute or a harmonica. Truth is a cow which yields them no milk so they have hired the most expensive law firm in Syracuse to help them milk the bull. The truth as these devils see it will not set them free.

doctrev	Posted: 2006/4/4 6:58 Updated: 2006/4/4 6:58
Just popping in Joined: 2004/11/7 From: Sydney Australia Posts: 3	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of This whole sorry episode shows the folley of an ecclesiastical insitution seeking to investigate and regulate charges in an "in house" fashion. The allegations should have been passed straight to the relevant criminal authorities for investigation and the laying of charges if appropriate. A mentor of mine who was an archdeacon within and neighbouring diocese is now serving 8 years in prison for criminal behaviour involving minors. The church tried to cover this up initially via an internal investigation and relocation of the priest concerned. These allegations did not come to the attention of the relevant authorites until one of the abused minors committed suicide. The diocese has been publically shamed and now faces compensation claims that are likely to bankrupt it. Why we think the church should be less accountable and transparent than any other public institution is beyond me!!

essodalori	Posted: 2006/4/4 9:42 Updated: 2006/4/4 9:42
Home away from home Joined: 2004/9/15 From: Posts: 4904	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of "VIRTUEONLINE: "Fr. Johnson you have been identified as the priest at St. Paul's in Owego, NY who sexually abused some 16 boys in the 70s. Is that true?" JOHNSON: "Not that I know of." --- So, the Catholic disease, which has led to 10,000 American boys sodomitically raped in the US by queer priests, spreads out into ECUSA. "Not that I know of." is not the denial of an innocent man. One boy committed suicide here; same in my town from the Catholic disease. How to end this ferocious and disgusting evil? Dequeerize the church. With Christian love, Essodalori P.S. Parents - NEVER allow your sons to be alone with a priest - from any church.

JimMcNeely	Posted: 2006/4/4 14:00 Updated: 2006/4/4 14:00
Home away from home Joined: 2004/4/7 From: Posts: 699	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of Here is more evidence of tolerance and inclusivity on the part of a Loon Left bishop. Had this priest been orthodox and faithful to his ordination vows, he would be defrocked, deposed, and decried. But because this is an issue of homosexual sex, the weak bishop simply trashes the faithful priest who is exposing a cover-up. There is tolerance for the child molestor, but NONE for the faithful priest seeking justice for the victims. The hypocrisy of the Loon Left is so blatantly obvious for all to see. They are the most intolerant, hate-filled, venomous, nasty people on this planet. -Jim+

JimMcNeely	Posted: 2006/4/4 14:02 Updated: 2006/4/4 14:02
Home away from home Joined: 2004/4/7 From: Posts: 699	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of Esso, While I agree that there are many priests who are not safe, the vast majority are. I can assure you that being alone with me - a parent of three daughters and a son - is as safe as is humanly possible. But then again, I take my ordination vows towards the church and my family seriously. -Jim+

essodalori	Posted: 2006/4/4 14:46 Updated: 2006/4/4 15:31
Home away from home Joined: 2004/9/15 From: Posts: 4904	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of Hey Father Jim, I don't how to say this properly to you. Yes, the majority of priests are not homoteenboy molesters. But the problem for parents is this: No one knows who is and who isn't, and both Catholic and ECUSick churchs (as above), protect the homopervert molesters over the children. In the Catholic Church, some 4% of Catholic priests were involved in child molestation in that past forty years (and the vast, vast majority of them in homomolestation). That's what, 1/25 priests? In many places, like Boston, the fraction is more like 1/10. Put three priests in a parish (as in ours), and the odds are something like 1/6, or 1/8, that one of them is a teen boy homopervert molester. In a Catholic school, with ten priests, the odds are 1 in 2. Sane and smart parents don't play those abominable odds with the safety and well-being of their children. Indeed, many of those parents who trusted priests to be living 'in persona Christi' were cruelly betrayed, and their sons damaged for life (if they didn't commit suicide). No Catholic parent I know around here would let a son be with a priest for one minute unsupervised. And hey - this was not just the molesters' and bishops' doing; many, many priests knew what was going on for many, many years - and did NOTHING. It is going to take decades upon decades for the Catholic church in the US (and in Ireland, and in Canada, and in France, and in Austria, etc. etc.) to earn back the trust it once took (and was freely given) for granted. That trust was viciously abused; parents are RIGHT to not trust. I could not believe what happened around here; in others places (Boston, Brooklyn, Long Island, Los Angeles), it was many, many times worse. The churches places the well-being of kids dead last - and no one believes their bishops' little excuses. It is a disease that is endemic in priestly churches. In the Catholic Church, 80% of the whole thing was homosexual - brought about by homopriests and their enablers. As I say, when the priesthood is dequeerized, then maybe parents will start to trust again; that day is far, far, far, far, off. With real Christian love, Esso

JimMcNeely	Posted: 2006/4/4 17:57 Updated: 2006/4/4 17:57
Home away from home Joined: 2004/4/7 From: Posts: 699	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of Esso, Let me say that I appreciate the anxiety you feel in addressing this issue to me. I can understand why it would generate some cause for pause. But between brothers in Christ, love covers everything. Never fear telling me the truth as you see and understand it. I understand your perspective about priests and children (I think.) As a parent, I understand the fears and needed safeguards for our children. If a homosexual priest molested my son or a pedophile attacked one of my daughters, there would be hell to pay for that priest. PERIOD! I also understand that about keeping kids away from priests as a safeguard. The key is two-fold. First, develop a relationship with the priest. If this person is untrustworthy, why attend in the firstplace? Second, once the priest is determined to be trustworthy, have faith in the Spirit within the priest and the ministry you share with him. The key is being a trustworthy priest. And, as you say, until clergy can be trusted as a group, there will continue to be fear. -Jim+

PJLILL	Posted: 2006/4/4 18:42 Updated: 2006/4/4 18:42
Home away from home Joined: 2004/7/21 From: Alberta Posts: 310	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of Out of interest, why limit the angle to priests only Esso? Are not the population at large potentially as untrustworthy? I think Jim has it right in that we should judge depending on the circumstances. You can't distrust everybody all of the time. Neither can you trust everybody all of the time. It's pretty much a judgement call IMHO, like life in general. And yes, I agree with you that the more recent batch of priests do not have a good press, as such deserve particular scrutiny. I think we had the same debate a while back on murderers - and again if you took the argument to the extreme then St Paul would not qualify. You never answered me on that one Peter

essodalori	Posted: 2006/4/4 19:03 Updated: 2006/4/4 19:03
Home away from home Joined: 2004/9/15 From: Posts: 4904	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of "Out of interest, why limit the angle to priests only Esso? Are not the population at large potentially as untrustworthy?" --- Sure, Peter. When the percentage of priests who are homosexual is vastly higher than in the general population (which it is), and given that homosexuals are far more likely to molest teenage boys than normal men teenage girls (which they are) you have to be far more careful with your sons and priests than with your sons and the average man. However, these days, as most parents will tell you, you have to be very, very ,very careful trusting anyone around your children. The level of perversion in our society, and child molestation, and homomolestation is off the charts. With Christian love, Essodalori

PJLILL	Posted: 2006/4/4 19:35 Updated: 2006/4/4 19:35
Home away from home Joined: 2004/7/21 From: Alberta Posts: 310	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of Not a lot of fun being a parent in this day and age, eh?

essodalori	Posted: 2006/4/4 20:30 Updated: 2006/4/4 20:30
Home away from home Joined: 2004/9/15 From: Posts: 4904	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of No, Peter, it's not. A lot of parents, including myself and my wife, see a LOT of evil in society, just waiting to get to our kids. These is a LOT less trust these days, because of that evil. And on Paul! We know in retrospect that Paul was a truly repentant and converted man. People in his day did not. It would have been perfectly appropriate for parents in his day to not have allowed their children to be alone with him. Yeah? With Christian love, Esso

danhaszard	Posted: 2006/4/4 20:38 Updated: 2006/4/4 20:38
Just popping in Joined: 2005/9/20 From: Bangor Maine USA Posts: 11	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of Clergy sexual abuse in the "other" religions. Pedophilia is covered up in the Jehovah's Witnesses on a scale worst than the Catholic priest scandal.Not only do they deny it but the Watchtower has instructed the Kingdom Hall elders to go after all whistle-blowers. The JW's exploit an obscure 2,000 year old bible passage and demand that there be TWO witnesses to every act of child abuse committed by a Jehovah's Witness.This fosters a code of silence and a "pedophile's paradise" in the Jehovah's Witnesses. The 'Two Witness' Take-Down is a subterfuge exploited by Jehovah's Witnesses that is selectively enforced by elders who play favorites and fast & loose with the truth,an excuse to ignore and suppress evidence at whim. Learn more http://www.silentlambs.org Jehovah's Witnesses childrens advocacy site -- Danny Haszard

eulogos	Posted: 2006/4/5 1:10 Updated: 2006/4/5 1:10
Just popping in Joined: 2005/6/29 From: Owego, NY Posts: 3	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of Nitpicking here, but the forensic psychiatrist could really only determine that the accuser was credible, that in his professional opinion the young man was telling the truth, and that he was not deluded. Given the number of accusations that were made in this case (I understand it was something like 16 or 17) I was inclined to believe that these were true allegations anyway. The opinion of the forensic psychiatrist strengthens the case. But you can't say that "he verified that the allegations were, in fact, true." I think only God can know what exactly happened between two people 20 or more years ago. The memories of both parties can be faulty in details. And as far as the rest of us knowing, a convergence of probabilities and likelihoods can finally make a person's guilt seem beyond reasonable doubt. Not beyond some farfetched extreme doubt, but beyond reasonable doubt. If this case were not beyond the statute of limitations and a jury found the accusations true beyond a reasonable doubt, then the accused would be legally guilty of the crime. We still wouldn't absolutely know for a fact that he did it. So lets speak more carefully. Susan Peterson

eulogos	Posted: 2006/4/5 1:25 Updated: 2006/4/5 1:25
Just popping in Joined: 2005/6/29 From: Owego, NY Posts: 3	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of I also would like to comment that Mr. Virtue's hands off we aren't responsible policy regarding comment rules....is irresponsible. He hosts this website, provides this forum. If he allows people to commit slander and detraction, to speak in extremely uncharitable terms of their fellow human beings, he bears some responsibility for such words being out there on the internet for others to read. I refer specifically to some of the truly nasty remarks which routinely appear here about people with same sex attraction. It is no part of orthodoxy, no part of faithfulness to scripture or the teachings of historic Christianity, to hate or despise any of our fellow human beings. We are obliged to maintain that certain behaviors are wrong and clearly stated to be so in scripture and always believed to be so by the tradition of the church. I would also say that they are contrary to the natural law properly understood. But those who have such inclinations are not to be hated, despised, humiliated, called insulting names and so on and so forth. This is no kind of witness to our faith! It confirms people in believing that Christians only believe these things because they are unloving, prejudiced bigots against people with same sex attraction. I have even wondered if some of the people who say these things on this blog aren't plants and agent provocateurs posting here to discredit us. If they aren't, they are doing the enemy's work for him. And Mr. Virtue, you are letting them do so. Please, set up a civility policy and then delete scurrilous posts and warn offenders that they will be banned, and then, if necessary, ban them. You have the ability to do so; if you don't, you are to some degree responsible for what they say. Susan Peterson

Liberty	Posted: 2006/4/5 2:22 Updated: 2006/4/5 2:24
Just can't stay away Joined: 2006/3/6 From: Posts: 105	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of Wasn't it terrible what Jesus said about Judas, "better if he had not been born"? Up to that point, Judas was probably just an average disciple of Jesus not warranting that level of scorn by modern standards of tolerance. And then that murderous intellectual Saul becomes a Christian and writes a letter to the Corinthians that they should throw a guy out of the church for living with his mother. Not only isn't life fair, but there is no equality in Heaven. However, there may be equality in Hell.

Anonymous	Posted: 2006/4/5 2:27 Updated: 2006/4/5 2:47
	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of In case you haven't noticed Ms. Peterson, when you jump into the fray of VOL you had better understand that short shrift is given to those who advocate, enable and condone homosodomania, lesbimania and bi-voltmania. Are you an enabler, advocate and condoner of these most heinous acts? Do you consider homoeroticism and paedophilia as a Godly trait? I sure hope not! In Xrist, Giovanni

ailanthus	Posted: 2006/4/5 2:28 Updated: 2006/4/5 2:28
Just popping in Joined: 2005/9/12 From: Posts: 4	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of I hesitated for quite some time before sending any information to VirtueOnLine--for quite a number of reasons. One of them I explicitly mentioned to Mr. Virtue---the unhappy frequency of unkind and harsh comments my wife Susan refers to above. This article has drawn quite a few comments of this kind. The effect on me as a contributor was to make me feel I had done something unequivocally wrong by writing to Mr. Virtue, as though I had taken a wrong turn and ended up in a bad neighborhood. Father Johnson was loved and is still loved by many parishioners of St. Paul's. He is not an abstraction, but a real person at a terrible crisis in his life. He needs our prayers and continued love, not the implicit cruelty I have seen here. Chris Peterson

Anonymous	Posted: 2006/4/5 11:09 Updated: 2006/4/5 11:38
	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of Dear Susan and Chris, 1. Both of you express concern for Fr Johnson, while ignoring the children he is accused of molesting. You seem to be more focused on the rights of the accused than those of the victims. That is very lopsided when we're talking about the abuse of innocent children. Do you have any idea of the damage that this kind of abuse does to children? Perhaps you should read a few case studies to regain your sense of balance on this issue. 2. Do you have children? How would you feel if a priest molested one of your children? How would you feel not knowing how many others like him are in the priesthood? Normal healthy parents are very protective of their children and grandchildren and that's where most of the posters here are coming from--they're more concerned about protecting children than they are about the rights of those accused of being pedophiles. 3. Fr Johnson seems to be in denial. There are 15 or 16 victims involved (and maybe others who haven't come forward), which makes the accusations highly credible. Fr Johnson confessed and then rescinded it. He subsequently denied the accusations very unconvincingly in his telephone conversation with VOL. Thus, your focus on Fr Johnson's rights resembles co-dependent enabling, like the family and friends of someone accused of DUI being more concerned about his/her legal rights than about his/her drinking problem. True Christian love demands firm confrontation--rehabilitation can't begin until the drunk admits that there is a problem. Enabling a drunk means that he/she will continue drinking and driving--and may kill someone. Enabling a pedophile means that he/she will continue molesting children--and may permanently harm them very seriously . Therefore, I have to ask you to seriously consider how you would feel if your support for Fr Johnson's rights resulted in further molestation. Given what we know about pedophilia, that is very likely. Therefore, I am asking you to please reconsider which is more important, Fr Johnson's rights or the rights of the children who he may molest in the future. 4. Both of you ignore the cover-up in the Diocese of Central New York. When Fr David Bollinger was told about the abuse, he did what he was supposed to do--he reported it to his bishop. And how did his bishop respond? He retaliated against Fr Bollinger. In ancient Rome, messengers who brought bad news were often killed. Thus the modern expression, "don't shoot the messenger." The bishop's persecution of the messenger in this case, Fr Bollinger, is substantially the same as the cover-up of abuse by priests in the Roman Catholic Church. It should not, then, come as a surprise to you that normal healthy parents such as those who post here are livid. The attempted cover-up by the bishop of Central New York causes a great lack of confidence in ECUSA and a grave concern about how many pedophile priests there are in ECUSA who are being "protected." It should, therefore, not surprise you that the language of those who post here is sometimes strong--they are concerned about protecting innocent children, not the rights of the priests who are accused of molesting them. They are concerned about the fate of the priest who blew the whistle--he is the true hero here and, due to the actions of the bishop, now also a victim. What about his rights? Why doesn't your advocacy for the rights of the accused also extend to him? Your silence on this point is deafening. Susan and Chris, both of you come across as being very sincere Christians who have gotten lost along the Way. How would Jesus have responded to this situation? Would He have focused on the rights of the person accused of pedophilia or on the innocent children who were victimized? Yes, He would have known for sure whether the allegations were true or not, whereas our knowledge is limited and imperfect. But we are called to be as "wise as serpents" in addition to being as "harmless as doves" (Mt 10:16). Thus, we can't just ignore what is obvious--that amounts to victimizing the children a second time. And we can't ignore the attempted cover-up by the bishop of the Diocese of Central New York--regardless of whether the allegations are ultimately proven to be true or false, his attempt to hush it up and his persecution of Fr Bollinger undermine the confidence of the faithful in the Church and demonstrate that he is not fit to be a bishop and should be removed from office. I am amazed that your concern is limited to the accused. Are you not scandalized by what has transpired in the Diocese of Central New York? Where is your concern for the children? Where is your concern for the priest who exposed the molestation of children in your diocese? It seems to me that both of you are in dire need of a "reality check." Blessings during this Lenten season, wopriest+

Anonymous	Posted: 2006/4/5 13:13 Updated: 2006/4/5 13:13
	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of wopriest, Thank you for helping Susan and Chris see the error of their ways - Again, you make eminent sense and your putting into perspective the lopsidedness of liberal thinking gone so horribly wrong should, hopefully, serve as a warning call. In Xrists Salvific Love, Giovanni

gregory	Posted: 2006/4/5 13:38 Updated: 2006/4/5 13:41
Home away from home Joined: 2004/8/4 From: Nflorida Posts: 4436	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of wopriest, Excellent post! as for me, i can only add; Father Johnson needs our prayers and continued love, and twelve minutes alone with all the fathers of the children. if a father is missing or dead then let a grandfather step in ... Katie bar the door. probably doesn't take 12 knots to hold the millstone in place though.

PJLILL	Posted: 2006/4/5 14:50 Updated: 2006/4/5 14:55
Home away from home Joined: 2004/7/21 From: Alberta Posts: 310	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of I'm going to approach this from two angles. Firstly, thanks wopriest - you are absolutely spot on. Should this abuse be proven true, our sympathies should lie first with the victims, not the perpetrator. Though he may appear to be nice man, and though he be going through a 'terrible crisis' - it's really not the point. He would be shown to have abused his trust in the worst possible way. Should there be room for love and forgiveness? Of course! But that does not absolve the need for justice. Should it be proven then the man should be stripped of his priesthood, jailed and never ever allowed contact with children again. Secondly, hello Chris and Susan. I agree with you that a man should not be condemned before the jury has spoken. However, you would have to agree based on what we do know it does not look so good? Regarding your comments on the spirit of what is sometimes said here, I am in agreement with you. We had a thread on this issue a while back, and for me the biblical injunction is clear. However most people here are americans and being from that neck of the woods you should know they are not backwards about coming forwards. Forthright, you could say..... Blessings, Peter

Anonymous	Posted: 2006/4/5 17:21 Updated: 2006/4/5 17:21
	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of Be aware of pedophiles and sex offenders: http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/wp-content/images/wanted_mohammed.jpg

ailanthus	Posted: 2006/4/6 0:27 Updated: 2006/4/6 0:27
Just popping in Joined: 2005/9/12 From: Posts: 4	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of Dear Susan and Chris, "1. Both of you express concern for Fr Johnson, while ignoring the children he is accused of molesting." Response: The posts respond to intemperate comments made here. "You seem to be more focused on the rights of the accused than those of the victims." Response: Neither of us mentioned or referred to rights at all. Susan's proper response to my careless comment regarding the degree of certainty that should be afforded to forensic psychology was based on a concern for truth in general. And this should be obvious to any impartial thinker. "That is very lopsided when we're talking about the abuse of innocent children." Response: A false premise leads to an incorrect conclusion "Do you have any idea of the damage that this kind of abuse does to children? Perhaps you should read a few case studies to regain your sense of balance on this issue." Response: You continue, not understanding the reason the posts were made in the first place. "2. Do you have children?" Response: Why, yes. We have nine. Five boys and four girls. Thank you for asking. "How would you feel if a priest molested one of your children?" Response: I would be outraged. "How would you feel not knowing how many others like him are in the priesthood?" Response: Wary. "Normal healthy parents are very protective of their children and grandchildren and that's where most of the posters here are coming from--they're more concerned about protecting children than they are about the rights of those accused of being pedophiles." Response: So we have buy into your dichotomy or we're not normal or healthy? You're verging into incivility "3.Fr Johnson seems to be in denial." Response: An unwarranted assumption. "There are 15 or 16 victims involved (and maybe others who haven't come forward,) which makes the accusations highly credible." Response: This is circular reasoning, at best. "Fr Johnson confessed and then rescinded it." Response: As far as I know, the only people who know what was on the paper Fr. Johnson signed are the Bishop, the head of the Diocesan Response, and Fr. Johnson. It was probably nuanced and finessed, if I know this Bishop. "He subsequently denied the accusations very unconvincingly in his telephone conversation with VOL." Response: Your time line is incorrect. David Virtue's phone call to +Johnson took place many moons ago. "Thus, your focus on Fr Johnson's rights resembles co-dependent enabling, like the family and friends of someone accused of DUI being more concerned about his/her legal rights than about his/her drinking problem." Response: Please see the first response. Your posting all stems from an improper assumption. "True Christian love demands firm confrontation—rehabilitation can't begin until the drunk admits that there is a problem." Response: Agreed. But it is not my office or Susan's to confront +Johnson. That office belongs to Bishop Adams and Father Martinicchio. "Enabling a drunk means that he/she will continue drinking and driving--and may kill someone. Enabling a pedophile means that he/she will continue molesting children--and may permanently harm them very seriously . Therefore, I have to ask you to seriously consider how you would feel if your support for Fr Johnson's rights resulted in further molestation." Response: How is calling people names supposed to help? "(...)Therefore I am asking you to please reconsider which is more important, Fr Johnson's rights or the rights of the children he may molest in the future." Response: I trust there is some middle ground between a lynch mob and the ACLU? "Both of you ignore the cover-up in the Diocese of Central New York. When Fr David Bollinger was told about the abuse, he did what he was supposed to do--he reported it to his bishop. And how did his bishop respond? He retaliated against Fr Bollinger. In ancient Rome, messengers who brought bad news were often killed. Thus the modern expression, "don't shoot the messenger." The bishop's persecution of the messenger in this case, Fr Bollinger, is substantially the same as the cover-up of abuse by priests in the Roman Catholic Church." Response: Both of us have made many, many posts in defense of Father Bollinger and against the subterranean ethos of the Diocese of Central New York. Do a little Googling, mein Freund. " It should not, then, come as a surprise to you that normal healthy parents such as those who post here are livid." Response: Being “normal” is not a moral norm. We share normality in your sense with all the other higher mammals. But we are not merely animals. As an animal, an aggrieved parent migbt have an inclination to bite Bishop Adams---bad idea! The question is, or should be, what do we do with our “livid(ity)?” "The attempted cover-up by the bishop of Central New York causes a great lack of confidence in ECUSA and a grave concern about how many pedophile priests there are in ECUSA who are being "protected." It should, therefore, not surprise you that the language of those who post here is sometimes strong--they are concerned about protecting innocent children, not the rights of the priests who are accused of molesting them. They are concerned about the fate of the priest who blew the whistle--he is the true hero here and, due to the actions of the bishop, now also a victim. What about his rights? Why doesn't your advocacy for the rights of the accused also extend to him? Your silence on this point is deafening." Response: If there were a Society For the Protection of Straw Dogs, you would be hearing from it about now. Please make an effort to inform yourself on our efforts to advocate for Father Dave. "Susan and Chris, both of you come across as being very sincere Christians who have gotten lost along the Way. How would Jesus have responded to this situation? Would He have focused on the rights of the person accused of pedophilia or on the innocent children who were victimized? Yes, He would have known for sure whether the allegations were true or not, whereas our knowledge is limited and imperfect. But we are called to be as "wise as serpents" in addition to being as "harmless as doves" (Mt 10:16). Thus, we can't just ignore what is obvious--that amounts to victimizing the children a second time. And we can't ignore the attempted cover-up by the bishop of the Diocese of Central New York--regardless of whether the allegations are ultimately proven to be true or false, his attempt to hush it up and his persecution of Fr Bollinger undermine the confidence of the faithful in the Church and demonstrate that he is not fit to be a bishop and should be removed from office. I am amazed that your concern is limited to the accused. Are you not scandalized by what has transpired in the Diocese of Central New York? Where is your concern for the children? Where is your concern for the priest who exposed the molestation of children in your diocese? It seems to me that both of you are in dire need of a "reality check." Response: I think the one you sent us just bounced!

PJLILL	Posted: 2006/4/6 2:40 Updated: 2006/4/6 2:41
Home away from home Joined: 2004/7/21 From: Alberta Posts: 310	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of I'm all in favour of biting Bishop Adams Grr Grr....

Anonymous	Posted: 2006/4/8 3:26 Updated: 2006/4/8 13:23
	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of Dear Susan and Chris, We seem to have a communication failure. Let's see if we can sort this out. I took your postings at face value--within the context of the thread--and responded accordingly. You have objected, stating that your "posts respond to intemperate comments made here." I can identify with your objections to intemporate posts because I also sometimes believe that the posters here get a bit carried away. Much of my response to you was, in fact, an attempt to explain their posts to you so that you could understand them in the context of normal human emotion and communication. Many of the posters here have deeply held beliefs about homosexual behavior based on their own direct experience. I suggest that you poke around this site a bit so that you gain an understanding of where they are coming from. After doing so, you may come to an understanding of why they are so strident in their posts--they are outraged because the homosexual behavior endorsed by ECUSA threatens to destroy Western Civilization. Blessings, wopriest+

stonchen	Posted: 2006/4/8 21:35 Updated: 2006/4/9 15:04
Not too shy to talk Joined: 2005/7/5 From: Posts: 22	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of By accepting and condoning homosexual behavior, the ECUSA has dug itself into a logical black hole regarding pedophilia. 1) Pedophilia is one of the primary causes of homosexuality. According to a study appearing in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46% of gay men and 22% of lesbians reported homosexual molestation in childhood. This compared to childhood same-sex molestation rates of 7% of heterosexual men and 1% of heterosexual women. A host of other studies show similarly strong links between childhood sexual abuse and adulthood homosexuality (http://www.narth.com/docs/studiesofinterest.html). True, not all pedophilia victims become gay, and not all gays were sexually molested during childhood. Other factors -- mediocre relationship with same-gender parent, non-acceptance by same-gender peers, impaired gender identity development during childhood, etc. -- also contribute to same-sex attraction. But the undisputed fact remains -- children who are sexually molested by an older member of the same gender are substantially more likely to become gay or lesbian in later life than children who are not. 2) Children who are pedophilia victims are also more likely to become pedophiles when they grow up. Since gays and lesbians are more likely to have been sexually abused, it is no surprise that they are more likely to seek improper sexual contact with children, especially children of the same sex. Despite gay activist claims to the contrary, the homosexuality-pedophilia connection is well documented. If there is any doubt, consider this thorough well-research article originally published in the Regent University Law Review: http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.PDF Less than 3% of the adult population self-identifies as gay, lesbian or bisexual. Yet a third of all reported cases of child sexual abuse are same-sex in nature. Same-sex pedophilia is less likely to be reported than heterosexual pedophilia. One therapist found that, among his 400 gay clients, about a third of them were same-sex pedophilia victims, but the childhood sexual abuse was never reported except in only two cases. When unreported cases are taken into account, the horrific magnitude of this country's homosexual pedophilia problem becomes apparent. The shocking reality is that 7% of the U.S. adult male population was, during childhood, sexually molested by older men (http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html). The "Gay Report" is one of the largest homosexuality studies ever conducted. Over 5,000 gay persons of all ages and from all walks of life (and Christian denominations) were surveyed on various aspects of their lifestyle and sub-culture. This study was conducted by English Professor Karla Jay, Ph.D., and journalist Allen Young. Since both are gay activists, their findings cannot be dismissed as "anti-gay bias." The two researchers found that 23% of homosexual-oriented people admit to having had sex with youths aged 13-15 (http://www.narth.com/docs/reporton.html) 3) The ECUSA cannot say homosexuality is okay unless it simultaneously says the underlying causes of homosexuality are also okay. The church may squirm, protest, and engage in all kinds of mental gymnastics and Clinton-like word games. But it cannot escape its self-made philosophical quandary: when the ECUSA says there is nothing wrong with being gay or lesbian, it also says there is nothing wrong with pedophilia (or for that matter, any of the other pathological psychosocial factors that lead to homosexuality, including absent fathers, overly involved mothers and early childhood rejection of one's own biological gender). Homosexuality and pedophilia are different aspects of the same dynamic. There is no way the ECUSA can logically affirm one and not the other. By accepting homosexual behavior in general, the church forfeits its authority to make any moral judgment regarding Fr. Ralph Johnson's alleged behavior.

Anonymous	Posted: 2006/4/9 16:34 Updated: 2006/4/9 16:34
	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of Quote: The level of perversion in our society, and child molestation, and homomolestation is off the charts. And the internet busts the police in this area (Dayton, Oh.) shows is still getting worse. This as well as the molestion rate in general. All part of the decline in any kind of moral values backed up by orginazations like the ACLU.

ailanthus	Posted: 2006/4/9 23:29 Updated: 2006/4/9 23:29
Just popping in Joined: 2005/9/12 From: Posts: 4	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of Wopriest, surely you will agree that there is a point at which the normal human emotion of anger becomes sinful? Just as the normal human emotion of attraction between the sexes can descend into the sinfulness of lust?

Anonymous	Posted: 2006/4/10 0:59 Updated: 2006/4/10 0:59
	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of "Wopriest, surely you will agree that there is a point at which the normal human emotion of anger becomes sinful?" Yes. There is also the principle of hating the sin but loving the sinner.

Anonymous	Posted: 2006/4/10 1:00 Updated: 2006/4/10 1:01
	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of Duplicate deleted

bcwright	Posted: 2006/4/10 4:50 Updated: 2006/4/10 6:04
Home away from home Joined: 2005/7/4 From: Posts: 528	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of The two researchers found that 23% of homosexual-oriented people admit to having had sex with youths aged 13-15 (http://www.narth.com/docs/reporton.html) I should say first of all that I've only read the review, not the original book. However the review does not make it clear whether this statistic represents adult molestation of young people, or the self-reporting of youthful sexual experimentation (where both of the individuals involved were young people). Common sense would tend to indicate that both kinds of sexual behaviour are likely being comingled here, in percentages that we can only guess. However this statistic, in addition to the one stating that 19% reported positive attitudes towards sexual activity within that age group, are relevant to the extent that they show that there is a substantial degree of approval within the gay community of young people engaging in sex. What is less clear from the review is the extent of approval or practice of adult-youth sexual contact - although there is considerable evidence from other sources of the approval of at least a substantial minority within the gay community.

stonchen	Posted: 2006/4/10 15:55 Updated: 2006/4/10 16:11
Not too shy to talk Joined: 2005/7/5 From: Posts: 22	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of bcwright, valid points. There is a minority in the GLB community that approves of adult-child sexual contact. But the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia goes much deeper than that. 1) P-FLAG publishes literature intended for teens who are struggling with same-sex attraction. Included are "coming of age" novels, which portray homosexual feelings and behaviors in a positive light. Of interest is the extent to which adult-child sex permeates P-FLAG materials. This raises the question: "If P-FLAG is about helping gay and lesbian adolescents accept their sexual orientation, why does pedophilia play such a prominent role in P-FLAG recommended reading for youth?" Many teens who have homosexual feelings were sexually molested during childhood; and their homosexual feelings emanate from those early childhood experiences. Therefore, P-FLAG has no choice. It simply cannot help teenagers accept their homosexuality as good, normal and healthy, unless it also helps teenagers accept their history of sexual abuse as good, normal and healthy. 2) The American Psychiatric Association seems to concur with the P-FLAG position. In 1994, the APA concluded it is a blatant logical contradiction to say that pedophilia is a disorder and homosexuality is not. Both pedophilia and homosexuality are developmental issues. Both occur when something inside a person stops growing. Both are signs of immaturity, but according to the APA, immaturity per se is not a disorder. Pedophilia is one of the primary causes of homosexuality. Sexually abused children are MUCH more likely to become gay or lesbian in later life than children who never experience sexual molestation. So how can we say that homosexuality is not a disorder when one of its origins is? If it is OK for a man to have sex with another man, why is it not OK for a man to have sex with a boy, especially when the boy agrees to it? If the gender of one's sexual preference doesn't matter, why does the age of one's sexual preference matter? Consequently, the American Psychiatric Association removed pedophilia from DSM, citing the same reasons for removal homosexuality in 1973. If a man is sexually attracted to boys and acts on those feelings, he might be breaking the law, but from a mental health perspective, there is nothing wrong with him. In taking this action, the APA concedes a basic fact: if you accept homosexuality, you have no rational basis on which to not accept pedophilia. Later, the APA put pedophilia back in DSM, but very reluctantly and only after a huge public outcry. This, however, does not change the underlying principle that motivated the APA's original decision to remove pedophilia from DSM in the first place: if we accept homosexuality, we forfeit any authority or basis on which to oppose adult-child sex.

stonchen	Posted: 2006/4/11 13:15 Updated: 2006/4/11 13:15
Not too shy to talk Joined: 2005/7/5 From: Posts: 22	Re: CENTRAL NEW YORK: Episcopal Priest Faces Two Charges of Other articles do a better job at clarifying when a particular statistic pertains to adult-child sex only and does not include youthful experimentation. See, for example: http://www.cfacr.org/pages/article.php?aid=97 To quote from the above: "25% of homosexuals admitted to having sex as adults with children and underage teens (Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, 1978)." "73% of male homosexuals had sex as adults with boys 19 years old or younger; 23% had sex with youth less than 16 years of age (K.Jay and A. Young, The Gay Report New York: Summit Books, 1979, p. 275)." These numbers are consistent with Jay and Young's finding that a boy's first homosexual experience is usually with an older male.