Catholic layman fired in abuse case

Rochester Democrat and Chronicle ^ | April 26, 2002 | Jay Tokasz

[valkyrieanne]

The dismissal of the religious education director at St. Thomas the Apostle Church in Irondequoit stunned parishioners and colleagues of the former Protestant minister.

David Higbee, 54, was fired Thursday after Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester officials discovered evidence that he had abused a boy years ago.

[anniegetyourgun]

Welcome to FR today.

[patent]

Interesting. He did the abuse as an evangelical, but the headline reads "Catholic", though there isn't any evidence yet that he did anything or is even accused of anything after he converted and became a Catholic.

patent

[Cicero]

On the face of it, this sounds very fishy to me. I'd be curious to hear from anyone who knows the state of affairs in the diocese of Rochester and what kind of person the bishop is. This priest is described as conservative, knowledgeable, with no signs of problems. There was a single charge against him from one person. The situation is described as one person's word against another's. Yet he is fired within 48 hours. That's not much time to do an out-of-state investigation. There may something more here than meets the eye.

[Notwithstanding]

Sad to see this happen - if the man had reformed his life. He should, however, know better than to accept a job like Religious Education Director when he knows it puts him in charge of programs for kids. He also should have expected his past to catch up to him - and therefore avoided being in such a visible position.

He deserves our prayers as does any victim of his.

[patent]

The bishop is a flaming liberal. There are more episcopalian priestesses trained in his schools then Catholic priests.

[Cicero]

P.S. I see that he was trying to start up a Catholic radio station. That raises a red flag for me, because some liberal bishops are very reluctant to see lay Catholics, especially conservative lay Catholics, have control over a radio or TV station. They think they should have a monopoly on Catholic news.

[Cicero]

That's what I thought. I didn't like to say so, because I wasn't sure this was the same bishop about which I had heard such stories. Thanks. This may be just an excuse to get rid of a conservative trouble-maker who is embarrassing the bishop.

[AmericanInTokyo]

....if the poor victim was a minor, and penetration occured, then this is statutory rape.

why dont they refer to it as RAPE instead of "abuse" (even if the victim was confused and did not resist)? I wonder about this.

Sounds like just another homosexual chickenhawk rape to me.

[BlessedBeGod]

I'd be curious to hear from anyone who knows the state of affairs in the diocese of Rochester and what kind of person the bishop is.

Matthew Clark is an utter disaster. He supports homosexuality completely, including marriage and as priests. He also supports women becoming priests.

Think AmChurch.

[valkyrieanne]

Yes, it is confusing. The man accused is apparently a layman, not a priest.

[valkyrieanne]

Thank you for your welcome. I hope no one thinks I am bashing Catholics by posting this as my first post. I am Protestant but think this story was interesting because it wasn't a priest who was accused but rather a layperson. It seemed different from the others.

[gcruse]

Yes, welcome. Especially if you are a Wagner fan. ;)

[patent]

It should seem different than the others because it wasn't a Catholic doing any abuse. It was an evangelical. Yet you and this article treat it like a Catholic issue. There is no evidence he did anything after he converted to Catholicism. On the record here it seems like he cleaned up his act when he became a Cahtolic. Yet again, its treated like a Catholic issue. Which it isn't.

patent

[anniegetyourgun]

It is and I didn't mean anything by the welcome other than that. As a protestant myself, I am so sorry for the RC church and hope they are able to fully repent of their complicity, eradicate the sin in their midst, and consecrate themselves for service.

[livius]

I agree, Cicero. Sounds extremely suspicious to me. The fact that the diocese didn't even include a review before their panel is also a danger sign. And, of course, this man was not a priest, and therefore, was not protected by the clerical clique.

If they had really been interested in the allegation, they would have investigated its accuracy. But they were just looking for a reason to get rid of somebody they considered a nuisance.