|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 22, 2009 16:17:00 GMT -5
CC I only read a little...too depressing. Hopefully if something is going on, they will be brought to justice.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 22, 2009 16:24:47 GMT -5
Cepha, I found nothing saying that the man that fled in the garden was St. John, so I don't know why I said that. (it does say that it was a "young man" and St. John was thought to be the youngest).
They all "fell away" which I always thought meant that they all fled in the garden. St. John seems to be the first to repent though, since he is the only one mentioned as being at the cross.
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on May 22, 2009 17:03:07 GMT -5
Woah Cradle!!! My jaw literally dropped when I read his letter. Oh my goodness. A "man of God" caring more about his reputation than the safety and well-being of CHILDREN!!! She wrote a good letter back though. Very too the point, but not mean. Very professional of her...not so professional of him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 22, 2009 23:25:05 GMT -5
That is sad. There is abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, Protestant Churches, and the Churches in the East. There is abuse outside Church circles too. But what does this prove? I am sorry, but I just see far too many Anti-Catholics talking about the Sex Scandals in the Catholic Church and saying "You see!? The Roman Church is so corrupt!". That doesn't prove the Catholic Church is corrupt, but only that Priests/Bishops (etc) ARE human, having the same inclination to sin as we do! Some are sick, and need our prayer and help not our condemnation! That is probably not the intent of this thread, but let not cast stones.
We need to pray for our Clergy members (and everyone), that God may guide them to all truth and not let Satan take a hold of them. We need to pray, not cast stones.
In IC.XC,
Ramon
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2009 9:06:42 GMT -5
This is a letter my sister wrote to a priest after calling cps on their daycare facility. She happened to be at the right place at the right time on accident and saw abuse. Father Stanns: While at your facility a week or so ago, I witnessed some items of concern w/in your day care facility and have since reported these concerns to the authorities. I do want to let you know that this has transpired and would like for you to know that they have visited your parish (in the event that you were unaware). Know that I had only the children’s best interest at heart. I have been asked to contact you to request permission to share your email address with the local CPS and/or to ask you to contact them regarding the situation as they would like to make sure that you (as head of the parish) are fully aware of the situation. Evidently, when they were visiting the facility, you were unavailable or away from the campus. If you would, please indicate your wishes for me to either share or not share your email address with these folks. If you do not wish for them to contact you via email, please feel free to contact Bonnie directly at (her phone number,took it out) to discuss further. Again, please know that my intentions are pure and have only the children’s well-being in mind. Thank you & God Bless, Stephanie White This was his response: Ms. White: Thank you for your concern for our children. But no, you cannot share my email with CPS and no, I will not contact them regarding this situation. I am very disappointed that you informed the authorities of your “items of concern” without informing me first. If you had informed me first I could have take action to address those concerns. As it is, you did not give me that option. To be honest with you, I do not trust you. I am very disturbed by the lack of professionalism shown. My question to you is this for what purpose and under whose authority were you near the pre-school? The pre-school has nothing to do with putting a generator at the parish hall. I am considering contacting David Bagley and withdrawing from the agreement with the county to provide an emergency shelter. My reason: it appears to us that the county was operating under false pretenses in bringing you to our site. Again, let me state this clearly. You do not have my permission to share my email and I will not be contacting Bonnie myself. However, if you could inform me of your “items of concern”, I would be willing to discuss them with you and with CPS and then take whatever action may be necessary to address them. God bless you, Fr. Joseph Geleney Pastor St. Ann’s Catholic Church Question: Who was biblical here and who wasn't? (Answer: The Priest, I'll tell you guys how, but only after you share your answers first) |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2009 9:09:18 GMT -5
Cepha, I found nothing saying that the man that fled in the garden was St. John, so I don't know why I said that. (it does say that it was a "young man" and St. John was thought to be the youngest). They all "fell away" which I always thought meant that they all fled in the garden. St. John seems to be the first to repent though, since he is the only one mentioned as being at the cross. Is there a scripture that says the all fled away? I'm not trying to beat you up on this, but I've heard that term used before as well, just don't remember it. I think the only Saint John that was naked might have been Saint John The Baptist (maybe you got them mixed up?).  |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on May 23, 2009 9:51:28 GMT -5
Cepha- I think problems should also be kept within that church, ideally. BUT when you feel nothing will be done by the priests, leaders, whoever...I believe other authorities should be called in.
This isn't an unimportant matter like a priest, Sunday school teacher, office worker, whoever stealing money from the treasurey......this is the well-being of CHILDREN. That, to God, is wayyyy serious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2009 10:42:44 GMT -5
Cepha- I think problems should also be kept within that church, ideally. BUT when you feel nothing will be done by the priests, leaders, whoever...I believe other authorities should be called in. Here's what the scripture teaches. Problems within The Church must be taken care of by The Church. I agree with you that if The Church doesn't take care of them, then the outside authorities should be called in. No argument there. But in the letter, the Priest told her that she should've brought the problems to The Church first (as The Bible teaches) and even gave her a 2nd chance to handle the situation in the biblical manner (which she chose not to do). Right...and The Bible clearly states that she was to bring it to The Church first (which she didn't). And The Priest was 100% correct in how he handled it. She went straight to the authorities and didn't come to The Church first. Do you see what I'm saying here? She was 100% wrong in going outside of The Church. Again, if this was a case where she went to The Church first and they still didn't handle the situation, then I'd agree 100% with you that she was right to go outside of The Church. When things like this happen, the children's welfare must come first and it has to be determined what is the best way for it to be handled that will least affect the children in a negative way. To just bring in the authorities without warning the children or without preparing the children for what they were about to go through is insensitive and was done in too much haste. She was wrong. The Priest was right. According to The Bible. 1 Corinthians 6 1Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
2Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. Matthew 18If Your Brother Sins Against You 15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
16But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on May 23, 2009 10:48:30 GMT -5
Cepha- I agree. However, what is done is done. And IMO the priest should have just gone with the flow. The authorities were already called, even if it wasn't the Biblical way to handle it....the children are what really matter when all is said and done. Children 1st, everything else 2nd. Be sure the children are taken care of, then speak to the person about doing it differently next time. Cradle- Did the priest do anything about the situation? He didn't give his email to CPS, but did he do anything within his church? Do you know? What was going on anyways? Abuse of some kind? Neglegance? (sp)    |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2009 11:00:23 GMT -5
Here's where the problem arises...what if the allegations were false? The Priest had no way of knowing before it was investigated by The Church first. That's why it has to be taken to The Church first...kids could be traumatized (as they were in many false allegations against The Church during the sex scandal of the last 30 years). The Priest was looking out for the interest of everybody involved. Well, The Priest did say he was going to handle it himself and asked the person who wrote him to give him the information she had (did she ever? or did she ignore his plea for her help?). I'm assuming he was going to confirm what she was saying before taking it to the authorities or at least confront the accused and see about removing them from their position (which is the Church's manner of handling the situation) until they were found guilty or innocent.
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on May 23, 2009 11:35:08 GMT -5
IMO what's done is done. Let CPS come in and do their thing so it doesn't look like you're hiding anything. Then have a sermon or meeting on how to Biblically handle a situation like that. As long as he makes it clear that calling the authorites is in fact okay if the situation isn't dealt with properly within the church 1st.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 23, 2009 11:38:32 GMT -5
Yeah, if someone is innocent, then they shouldn't have a problem with any investigation.
It would be really terrible if someone was falsely accused of child abuse, but if you are innocent then you should have nothing to hide.
Once, I was falsely accused by the State Police and afterwards I kept calling them to find out when they were going to give me a lie-detector test (as they had "threatened" to do). For some reason, they never did schedule it.
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 24, 2009 20:01:12 GMT -5
Here's where the problem arises...what if the allegations were false? The Priest had no way of knowing before it was investigated by The Church first. That's why it has to be taken to The Church first...kids could be traumatized (as they were in many false allegations against The Church during the sex scandal of the last 30 years). The Priest was looking out for the interest of everybody involved. Well, The Priest did say he was going to handle it himself and asked the person who wrote him to give him the information she had (did she ever? or did she ignore his plea for her help?). I'm assuming he was going to confirm what she was saying before taking it to the authorities or at least confront the accused and see about removing them from their position (which is the Church's manner of handling the situation) until they were found guilty or innocent. First of all, the allegations were not FALSE she heard them herself...calling the kids stupid and hollaring at them, then had the nerve to ask my sister to stay and watch the kids while the nun brought half of the kids to the nuns home because she could not fit them into the car! She did not even know my sis, even though steph is a good person she still did not feel like that was right. The Priest is wrong, because this nun has been working there for soooo long like 40yrs, like he did not know what the hell was going on  No sexual abuse, steph just reported what she saw and heard... But if all would like to know the rest... i have more emails.. |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 24, 2009 20:10:06 GMT -5
Ms. White:
Please allow me to start again.
I have spoken with Sister John (who runs the pre-school) and I believe I have learned what some of your concerns are.
Here is what I understand from listening to Sister John – who, btw, has run that pre-school for over 44 years; she has had under her charge the parents and the grandparents of some of these children now under her care. They trust her and I trust her.
But here are the concerns, as I know them:
1. Sister John brought the children to the convent and allegedly left them alone there. She did not. The children were never left alone. They were left in the care of Sister Rocio who was in the convent.
2. Sister John allegedly called the children “stupid.” She did not. In her words, she said “You are not stupid, let’s get moving” or words similar to that. She did not and would not ever call the children “stupid.”
There may be other “concerns,” but I am not aware of them and thus I would consider them all baseless and without merit.
As to the issue of trust: As you stated, you came to the pre-school looking for someone who was supposed to meet you. I accept that.
(BTW, the church office is the building right next to the pre-school, directly across the parking lot from the parish hall. There’s a sign. It says: “Office hours…”)
And I never said I thought there was any malice involved on your part. I simply questioned the reasons for you being in the pre-school. You may have entered the facility innocently enough, but from the beginning and based on only a few minutes observation it appears that you judged us as doing wrong without questioning anyone here about it. And you reported the matter to CPS instead of reporting to me first. You did not trust that you could express your concerns to me and expect to have them addressed in a satisfactory and appropriate manner. That is what bothers me. And so, I simply do not trust your motives.
To be quite frank about this, I trust Sister John’s concern for the well being of the children more than I trust your concern for their well being. I know Sister John. I don’t know you. But please believe me. I don’t doubt in the least that you feel you have the children’s well being in mind. However, you don’t know the school, nor do you know Sister John, nor the children, nor the circumstances and, to my knowledge, you don’t have any children in the pre-school. So, in my opinion, as a private citizen you had no basis for bringing these concerns against Sister John. As I pointed out above, Sister John has been caring for the children of this town for over 44 years. And it’s a testament to that care that parents who are not even part of our church have entrusted their children to her care. So, as to what is best for these children, I implicitly trust Sister John to know that. I do not believe she was treating the children inappropriately. And that’s why I get defensive. I am simply standing up for her and for what I know to be true.
As to the conflict of interest and the professionalism: My understanding is that you went over to the pre-school prior to meeting me at the parish hall. So, you possibly had these concerns in mind when we met. And I can understand you not wanting to speak in the presence of Mr. Bagley, but you could have emailed me with your concerns, because I believe the professional thing to do would have been to bring those issues to the one who is ultimately responsible for the care of the children, that is to me, instead of reporting them to the authorities. [glow=red,2,300]You, see, what you did appears to be “tattle-tailing” and in my opinion that’s not professional.[/glow]
I fully understand that there is a hyper-concern for the welfare of children in our society today. And please know that the church shares that concern and is fully committed to protecting children and that I am fully committed to protecting our children. And yes, as a private citizen you have the right to report what you believe is wrong. But justice, I think, would expect and demand that you first inform those who are responsible. Again, that would be me. I know I’m belaboring the point, but you could have informed me first and then said you were informing CPS if you still felt it was necessary.
You are also wrong in presuming that our termination of the agreement with the county would place people in need out on the street. First, the county will find space for them. And second, as a church we don’t turn people away. If someone shows up on our doorstep in need we would welcome them. We would simply not be working under the auspices of the county. And it is not vengeance on my part. Again, it’s simply a matter of whether I can trust county officials and those who work with them.
Anyways, I will contact Bonnie and inform her that I consider your items of concern to be baseless and that if she wants to inspect the pre-school, she is welcome at any time. I will also ask her for her email so I can forward this to her. And I will also inform Mr. Bagley of this issue.
Finally, it’s not me who is not being transparent here. It is you because you have concerns about our parish which you are not willing to share with me. It is you who are not being transparent with me.
God bless you,
Fr. Geleney
My sis is an engineer and was trying to get the church to offer a shelter with generator for the county if an emergency accurred. She had no intention of running into any of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 24, 2009 20:13:54 GMT -5
Fr. Geleney:
No sir - I'm not being transparent. Your email to me, in no way indicated, that you were extremely concerned with the welfare of the children but more-so how I wronged you. Your email should have been more like "Ms. White, I am cooperating w/ CPS and appreciate your concern for our children. THE END". Unfortunately it wasn't, and therefore I felt no obligation to explain my concerns to you. Unlike you indicated originally, I am more than open to discussing this with the authorities....you, on the other hand weren't so open to the idea as indicated by your insistance that I not share your email address with CPS.
Now that it's apparent that you have been misinformed, let me clear some things up. The relay of my concerns to you are not entirely accurate as I did NOT say that Sister John left the children alone only that she brought them to her house and left to let me in at the parish hall. I never stated that they were alone....only that she brought them to her house (why I don't know and can't think of a good reason to do so) and then came to meet me. Anything beyond that was fabricated. You didn't mention this, but did Sister John mention to you that she tossed the children into a car (literally, picked them up by one arm and tossed them in) w/o seatbelts or car seats....and that she was also going to leave half of the children with me to drop some off and come back with the rest? I don't know about you, but since it's evident that you don't trust me based on my "unprofessional handling of this matter", that you certainly wouldn't trust me with someone else's children. Furthermore, I know what I heard Sister John say and you have every right to believe her over me. I can only testify to what I heard with my own ears - and she angrily screamed at the children telling them they were stupid. Several of them were crying when I entered hearing this. I do not feel that there is any explanation that would justify the treatment that I witnessed so your wishes that I would have questioned the activities while I was there is noted but still holds not ground for me. There's no reason and/or excuse for any of it, so why discuss it further.
You are absolutely right....I don't have children there under Sister John's care. But the fact that I am a "private citizen" and not a parent of a child there does not make me less responsible for reporting potential mistreatment of children. My status as a human being knowing right from wrong is sufficient grounds to do so.
You should know that when we moved to the area, I began asking around about where childcare was available - that's when I learned about St. Anne's and the infamous Sister John. Every person I inquired to stated that there was Ms. Mary's and St. Anne's but that they wouldn't recommend St. Anne's -- EVERY person I asked. So, in contrast to your return customer statement, I think you should be aware that there are MANY adults in the area that she kept years ago who would NOT allow her to tend to their children due to the treatment they received. Why these allocations were never reported, I cannot say. I suspect that there are religious and socio-economic factors that play into the scenario. When I asked why this was allowed, I got the shrug and they'd say "that's just how Catholics are". To which I say "no it's not!" I was raised catholic and I can tell you that I was NEVER and would never have been treated that way. I think you should also know that I have also been made aware, very recently since my visit, of another case where a child was not allowed to return to school there after the child recounting that Sister John would tell them when misbehaving that Jesus didn't love them anymore and would lock them in a closet. None of which is appropriate in my eyes. So, as far as I'm concerned Sister John's tenure there is irrelevant to her treatment of children. Understand that this information is just FYI for you....and that I am only concerned with the treatment that I saw while I was there.
As for your wishes for me to have reported this to you, I do not apologize. I maintain that I handled the situation in the best manner possible to separate the business aspect of my visit from the items that I witness and was personally objective to. I can counter your opinion that I should've trusted you to speak with you with the fact that (just as you don't know me) I too do not know you. Since you are at the facility day in and day out, I assume that you are well aware of how your children are being treated and handled. Again, I'm sorry that you feel I should've handled it in different manner, but I still do not apologize for reporting the situation as I did and have absolutely no motives for doing so other than the safety of the children - and I wouldn't call this "tattle-tailing" exactly. On the other hand, since you are so confident in Sister John's treatment of the children, then there shouldn't be anything to worry with. CPS will come in, investigate, monitor, etc. and then everyone can get back to their day.
I must say to you that I do NOT work for the county and my thoughts do NOT in any way represent their thoughts or opinions. My report to you is entirely personal and has nothing to do with county business, but that does not mean that you are not free to forward this along to David Bagley. I beleive that he is well aware of the situation, but feel free to share as you wish.
You're also welcome to share this with Bonnie if you so chose. I have nothing to hide, no mal-intended motives, and certainly nothing to lose by sharing this with whomever you so chose. I am looking out for the children's interest only.
Stephanie White
This was last reply...she left it alone and left it up to the CPS to handle...she did her part. My sis is Catholic too, so she is not against the Church.
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on May 24, 2009 21:41:58 GMT -5
One would wonder what he was tyring to hide....by not just gritting his teeth and going along with the investigation...one has to wonder.....
1 Thessalonians 5:22
Abstain from all appearance of evil.
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 24, 2009 21:50:49 GMT -5
Yeah, i feel like his reaction to the whole deal shows that he is guilty of something...
|
|
|
|
Post by alfie on May 25, 2009 8:05:46 GMT -5
Wow. Sad...We have a worse problem right here in The United States with The Protestants...Abuse in Protestant Churches...Sex abuse spans spectrum of churches By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are not clergy or staff, but church volunteers.
At least 70 incidents a week
"The Catholics have gotten all the attention from the media, but this problem is even greater with the Protestant churches simply because of their far larger numbers," he says.
Of the 350,000 churches in the US, 19,500 – 5 percent – are Roman Catholic. Catholic churches represent a slightly smaller minority of churches in the CMR surveys which aren't scientifically random, but "representative" demographic samples of churches, Dr. Cobble explains.www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html At least 40% of Catholic priests are gay. |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 25, 2009 9:30:19 GMT -5
how do you know? I dont know....but i still would not leave my son with any priest alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by alfie on May 25, 2009 16:51:59 GMT -5
how do you know? I dont know....but i still would not leave my son with any priest alone. It was a Catholic web-site. They also mentioned a seminary. I also forget the name of seminary but years ago it was made up almost entirely of gay men. Pope John Paul ignored the seminary when there were complaints made against it. Since then pope Benedict cracked down on the seminary forbidding gays to attend it. It is only common sense that gays will gravitate to places where there are only men. What could be more perfect then to hide out in a seminary? If Protestants did not allow men to marry the same thing would occur. And it's no different then gay men moving to San Francisco or joining the armed forces. But think about it. This is the perfect place for a gay man to hide out. I have not said that Protestant ministers are not guity of sexual abuse. Many protestant men are addicted to porn. On one of the protestant T.V. programs they have a hot-line for protestant ministers to call who are hooked on porn. It is estimated that over 40% of Protestant men are either addicted to porn or commiting adultery. The other day a minister told me that he is seeing more and more young men show up at his church posing as Christians with the goal of seducing the young Chritian women. At his church there are few Christian men. People don't always attend church for the right reasons. They can be hiding out so they can fool people, just like John Wayne Gacy who murdered all those young boys. |
|
No sexual abuse, steph just reported what she saw and heard...