Friday, January 23, 2015

IN BOSTON, A CATHOLIC PASTOR, HIS PRINCIPAL AND A TEACHER RESIGN THEIR POSITIONS OVER NOTHING WRONG THAT HAD HAPPENED! HOW DO YOU SPELL H-Y-S-T-E-R-I-A?

I certainly can understand why the Archdiocese of Boston  might have policies in place that are an over-correction of a time when there were no policies in place regarding inappropriate, immoral, illegal and just plain perverted behavior and actions with minors. But this over correction or better yet overreaction which led to the Catholic pastor, his principal and a teacher resigning is a part of the theater of the absurd and simply unjust.

This is from the Boston Globe:

School Janitor Accused of Exposing Himself Was Just Using the Urinal

Investigators say they will not press charges against a Catholic school janitor once suspected of indecently exposing himself to a student in a campus bathroom.

Revere police said they investigated allegations that an employee of Immaculate Conception School in Revere acted inappropriately in the bathroom over a period of a month and a half.

Ultimately, though, detectives said no crimes were committed.

“The investigation revealed that a 64-year-old male assigned to the school’s custodial staff used the boy’s restroom, which was across the hall from his office, on several occasions in December and early January,” a statement from the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office read. “One boy reported to a parent that he had observed the adult using the urinal during this time.”

The employee did not engage in physical contact, use sexual language, or engage in other behavior that would support criminal charges, the statement continues. He voluntarily met with investigators and was willingly interviewed by detectives.

Told of the developments, the parent of the child expressed relief to officers, and declined to pursue further charges, authorities said.

Although the janitor was cleared in the case, the school’s parish priest, principal, and one of its teachers resigned earlier this month after failing to report the allegations in “a timely manner,” according to a statement released by the Boston Archdiocese.

26 comments:

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

The administrators knew that they were required to report the incident "in a timely manner" and failed to do so. They knew that Boston was and is the epicenter of the abuse scandal. They knew what the consequence of their failure might be.

Their failures were significant and their resignations seem, to me, to be warranted.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I understand you point of view former PI, but I think that this is an over-reaction and that there should have been some kind of panel inquiry as to why it was delayed in being reported.

There was no criminal intent. A man (and we priests do it too) used a urinal and a kid came in and saw his private parts. Some urinals make them very obvious as any man knows, especially the free standing ones without partition and the horror of horror urinals, the trough!

So maybe they (administration) delayed for the reason stated above which an investigation could have uncovered. Maybe a stiff reprimand could have sufficed.

Fr Joseph Mroz said...

Trying to be nice here, but I can't help but wonder at the judgment shown by any adult male - including us priests - who uses the boys' washroom. With all the asumptions of good will in the world, this was an avoidable and foreseeable disaster waiting to happen.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Fr. Joseph, I agree with what you are saying, but this is a result of the hysteria we are experiencing concerning priest sex abuse.

In my parish and our newly constructed gym, I've had to use the restroom there and yes any child could come in while I am there.

There needs to be common sense and boys see things in men's restrooms, we all did when we were children!

John Nolan said...

When I was at school we had to take showers after games under the supervision of a track-suited master. Now, thanks to the PC brigade, you can't even take a leak lest anyone be watching. Nonsense on stilts.

The next stage will be a law compelling all men to urinate sitting down as women do. In Germany some men have resorted to this after feminine pressure; they are referred to as 'Sitzpinkler' as opposed to 'Stehpinkler' who urinate standing up. The former term is used to designate a 'wimp', and rightly so.

Every man is entitled under Common Law to urinate against the near side wheel of his vehicle, and I assume that this obtains in the USA as much as it does in England.

Anonymous said...

Just taking a WILD guess here, but I wonder if the janitor was black and the boys reporting him were not......

Anonymous said...

Just taking a WILD guess here, but I wonder if the janitor was black and the boys reporting him were not......

Gene said...

Does this mean we can tell urinal jokes?

Daniel said...

I hate to think there is more to this story than we see here, but I'm guessing there is. If I were an adult using a children's bathroom, I would take extra care, especially if a student walked in. Children don't "accidentally" see a grownup's genitals, not even in a bathroom. Unless we can somehow divine the janitor's intent, nobody can say "there was no criminal intent."

Fr Joe Mroz said...

Fr Allan, alas, yes, this is the result of what we have gone through. Have you heard the story of the conversion of Alec Guinness? He was playing Fr Brown and during filming in a village in France was wearing a cassock, and was approached by a young boy who grabbed his hand and chatted gaily and ran off saying "au revoir, mon Pere". Alas, those days are gone, as regrettable as that may be.
ps maybe we can't "divine the janitor's intent" but we can give him the benefit of the doubt, or a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, etc.

Jeffrey Rosario Turco said...

All,
I am a parent of three young children at IC Revere, the school in question. The Archdiocese has repeatedly stated that this was a boys bathroom. The fact is that this was not true until January 12, 2015. Prior to that time adults and kids were allowed to use those bathrooms. The Archdiocese panicked and jumped to conclusions without even asking those involved what the original report was. Massachusetts law requires the filing of a report if a mandated reporter "reasonably believes" that abuse or neglect has or is occuring. A parent asking why the school allows adults and children to use the same bathrooms I suggest would not lead someone to "reasonably believe" that a child was at risk and thus warrant a report. In this case when it was reported to the state on January 9, 2015 it only took the state until January 13,2015, or three working days, to screen it out as nothing to look at. The police and the District attorney got involved because the hysteria created by the Archdiocese and their false press release which indicated the bathrooms were for boys only. They fired three wonderful people, a aged their good names and because of their share arrogance can't admit they got this one wrong. As I said to the $300K a year superintendent of schools for the Archdiocese, "I hope no one ever treats you adult children as poorly as you have treated these people."

Jeff Turco.

Daniel said...

As a parent, I would not give "the benefit of the doubt" to a man exposing himself to my child, especially if he was in a children's bathroom where he had no need to be. I'm not saying he should have been prosecuted, and I see from story that he was not.
But incidents like this need to be taken seriously, and school officials obviously did not.
Teachers, coaches, day-care workers -- they all go through this as well, and they should, because protection of the kids should be top priority. Parents hear all the horror stories, and most of them never make it to the cops.

Anonymous said...

Have any of you people of the masculine persuasion ever used a urinal without "exposing yourself"? The notion of prohibiting adults from using the toilets (or "restrooms" or "washrooms" or "bathrooms") where children go is absurd. Should homes have at least four toilets...one for girls, one for boys one for women one for men? Maybe all grownups should wear "Depends" and wait 'till they get home.....

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Dear Mr. Turco! Thank you for your comment and I will hold these people, your parish and school in my prayer. I'm glad I am in Georgia though!
Fr. McDonald

Juden said...

Gene, I have forgotten all of the urinal jokes I knew when I was in 9th grade. Tell us one. (Are you in 9th or 10th?)

Anonymous 2 said...

John Nolan:

“When I was at school we had to take showers after games under the supervision of a track-suited master.”

Yes, I also remember going through the showers after games at school in England, John. Alas, now we live in less innocent times.


“Every man is entitled under Common Law to urinate against the near side wheel of his vehicle, and I assume that this obtains in the USA as much as it does in England.”

Does he have to stop the car first?

Seriously, though, I do not recall ever having come across this common law right during my legal education in England or indeed in the many years since then. So I did a bit of research on it this evening, and the answer seems to be “It depends” (pun intended):

http://bizarrebritain.com/is-urinating-in-public-a-chargeable-offence/

Fellow bloggers may enjoy reading this article. I especially liked the part about “pop up urinals” in Watford. It reminds me of a Monty Python sketch about vicious gangs of “Keep Left” signs.




Anonymous 2 said...

Yes, Jeff Turco’s explanation was very enlightening. It is always helpful to have an account from people who may actually know what they are talking about, as opposed to media reports.

Anonymous 2 said...

I do not wish to derogate from the seriousness of this sad episode but I can’t help thinking that it does indeed pose a Hamlet-like dilemma.

Daniel said...

It's important to note that the custodian is suspect of exposing himself at least three times in a month. How does that happen, accidentally? This doesn't appear to be a case of a man who just wandered into the wrong bathroom.
(Most elementary schools I've visited have separate bathrooms for students and staff for this very reason. If the school officially designated it as such on Jan. 12, they were probably making official what should have already been obvious to everyone.)
And it's nice to see that Mr. Turco has additional information. The parent(s) who filed the complaint most likely had even more information than he did.
And finally, once again, the conservatives on this blog are quick to believe pretty much any allegation against anybody, unless it involves possible endangerment of a child. That is a sad pattern that is obvious to most people who've looked at this issue.

John Nolan said...

Anon 2

Thanks for this, very amusing! Urinating against the nearside wheel of a gun was always allowed to artillerymen. Since the guns are the 'Colours' of the Royal Artillery the Royal Regiment must be the only unit that doesn't mind its Colours being so treated.

When at the age of 16 I first travelled to the Continent I was somewhat shocked at the casual way that men would urinate in the street (the fact that changing rooms at German swimming pools were not segregated as to sex was also an eye-opener, although a far from unpleasant one).

In the 17th century the English were noted for their habit of urinating in public. When Charles II married the Portuguese Catherine of Braganza one of her ladies-in-waiting complained that 'one cannot go abroad [in London] without having to endure the sight of beastly English pricks battering against every wall'.

Gene said...

Well, I posted a urinal joke for Anonymous that seemed fairly harmless and funny, but Fr. must not have like it. Too bad, Anonymous, you'll have to go find your own…joke that is.

Anonymous 2 said...

John Nolan:

I do understand your surprise at various corporeal practices on the Continent. I lived in Brussels for two years in my youth and, reserved Englishman as I was, could never quite get used to the Unisex bathrooms or the ladies in the vestibule collecting patrons’ coins in their little saucers. Moreover, despite the convenient “pissoirs” on the pavements (aka sidewalks), many Belgian males seemed to prefer a more exposed situation, such as a wall (or even the nearside of a car), although I suspect this may have had much to do with the local brew, Stella Artois, a nasty concoction (at least back then in 1976) calculated to scramble the neural pathways. Then again, in a country that boasts the Manneken Pis as a major sightseeing attraction that is even adorned with costumes on certain occasions, perhaps the practice is just deeply rooted in the culture:

http://www.topsightseeing.com/belgium/brussels/topsights/mannekenpis.htm

Gene said...

Anon 2, Geez, and Fr. would not post my urinal joke about the Russian Revolution…sheesh!

Flavius Hesychius said...

Hmmm... in some jurisdictions in the US, it is a sexual offence to urinate in public, a conviction which makes it mandatory for one to put a sign in the front-lawn identifying oneself as a sexual offender.

Essentially, it puts one in the same boat as rapists, child molesters, and sexual assaulters.

Just for urinating in public.

Anonymous 2 said...

Gene:

I can understand your disappointment but I can only assume that my own comment(s) on the topic possessed some redeeming “je ne sais quoi” that Father did not find in yours. =)

Gene said...

Anonymous 2, How could that possibly be? Moi, impertinent…never!