By Jamie Clark
Lez Get Real
June 9, 2011
http://lezgetreal.com/2011/06/minnesotas-holy-sex-offender-dumping-grounds/
 |
| Image via Wikipedia |
St. Paul/Minneapolis Archbishop, John Nienstedt defends the Minnesota Catholic Conference decision to become involved in the Minnesota (un)Constitutional Marriage Amendment. According to the Minnesota Independent, he used the old discredited claim that kids need a mom and a dad, adding that this measure is “not anti-gay, mean spirited or prejudicial,” even though it will ban Minnesota’s LGBT community from a fundamental right allowed to heterosexual citizens. This is not the first time that the St. Paul/Minneapolis Archdiocese has been in the Minnesota news this week.
On Tuesday, a federal lawsuit was filed in MN by a man alleging that former St. John’s Abbey Abbot Timothy Kelly (deceased) abused him when he was an altar boy in New York at St. Anselm’s Church between 1966-67. The man decided to come forward when he learned of his abusers death. Kelly even co-founded the “Interfaith Sexual Trauma Institute” (no longer operating) at St. John’s Abbey in 1993, which was created to deal with sex offenders in the Catholic Church. I can understand why St. John’s would decide it needed to step up on this issue, after all, it is known as dumping grounds for “holy” sex offender’s .
BehindthePineCurtain.com, is a site dedicated to “more than 300 victims of sexual abuse and misconduct by monastic and other personnel” in Minnesota. St. John’s itself has faced over fifty allegations, and ten of the accused were allowed to stay under “restrictions.” I would like someone to explain exactly what a “restricted sex offender” is, because I thought children were the ones we were suppose to protect, not their abusers.
The Abbey “Policy on Sexual Abuse and Sexual Exploitation” states, “Monks of Saint John’s Abbey are vowed to a celibate way of life.” A vow is nothing more than a promise and I do not feel like a promise to not molest children should even be considered, no matter who you are. Under “Intervention with the Accused Monk” this policy states that “if a psychological evaluation recommends professional treatment” and the monk receives said treatment, he will be allowed to “live at the monastery” where they will “establish appropriate limitations.” When they say “professional treatment” do they mean the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, because I can not imagine that the church is capable of dealing with the rehabilitation of sex offenders. Honestly, the state provided rehabilitation doesn’t seem to work either, according to a November 2009 Minnesota Independent article titled “MN Sex Offender Program costs $70 million a year but rehabilitates no one.” Either way it seems, these “holy” sex offenders shouldn’t have been allowed to return to any position in the Catholic Church.
Where is the justification in this? I thought sex offenders in Minnesota were not allowed near any environment where children may be present? Why are these pedophiles so different? I know that the Catholic Church has used all of this to further stigmatize homosexuals, most specifically gay men, because most allegations involved men and young boys. I need to point out that the abuse reported is said to have happened years ago, in a day when girls were nearly nonexistent in the lives of the accused. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, and a lot to do with opportunity. Once you look at child molesters in other denominations, the number of female victims greatly increases.
The days of using the LGBT community for a scapegoat for their crimes are over, so now they have decided to attack our families by supporting what I think has been most appropriately referred to by MN DFL members as the “Bradlee Dean Amendment.” How does Archbishop Nienstedt know what is best for anyone else’s family? And why is he involving Catholic Churches across Minnesota in his agenda to help write discrimination into our state Constitution? If he wants to participate, maybe he should volunteer his personal time outside of the Church instead of labeling every Minnesota Catholic as someone who does not believe in equal rights. Though, I think an even better idea would be for him to concentrate less time on ruining the lives of kids with same sex parents, and more on protecting children in the church that allows sex offenders to stick around on “sex offender restrictions.”
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.