Church youth group director charged with sex offenses

The ASSociated Press ^ | August 4, 2005 | AP

[AMTRepub]

Aug 4, 2005 : 11:23 am ET

KERNERSVILLE, N.C. -- The director of a church youth group has been charged with sex crimes involving two teenage girls in his group.

Timothy Paul Rowell, 23, of Kernersville, is accused of statutory sex offense and indecent liberties with a child. He had worked at Main Street Baptist Church.

The incidents happened between April 20 and June 1 with girls between 13 and 14 years old, police said. The church suspended Rowell from his duties June 22 and he was fired a week later.

"We ... did not see this coming, and basically had checked him out pretty thoroughly," the Rev. Mike Willard said.

Rowell was being held at the Forsyth County Jail with bond set at $125,000

[bethelgrad]

Our model of church polity can only work in the context of a free society that has a high view of justice and is relatively ethical in how its judiciary. You are right though, unchecked church power can lead to inquisitions.

[Antoninus]

Sorry, didn't realize that you were an anti-Catholic nutter.

Benedicat te omnipotens Deus.

[NJ_gent]

"Uh, if you know anything about Confession, you'd realize that no priest would grant absolution for such a confession."

Disregarding the mixed tenses, I'll say I do know a bit about confession, having been born, baptized, and confirmed in the Catholic Church, and having spent most of my youth in Catholic schools. What I may or may not know about confession or the assumed actions of a priest therein has no bearing on the hypothetical actions of a hypothetical criminal who goes to a priest seeking forgiveness and a clear conscience without an accurate understanding of what is required for such absolution.

"I'm not even sure that the seal of the confessional comes into play in such an instance."

It does not; precisely what I said in my post.

[Antoninus]

Our model of church polity can only work in the context of a free society that has a high view of justice and is relatively ethical in how its judiciary. You are right though, unchecked church power can lead to inquisitions.

No, I'm saying that what you're doing is exactly what the Inquisition used to do--handing your reprobate members over to the civil authority for punishment. I'm not saying that this is bad, only drawing a comparision.

As to your other point, I would argue that we have no such "free society with a high view of justice" at this particular moment in history. Indeed, considering the state of our judiciary and legal profession, the standards of justice and mercy set by the Inquisition are actually quite high in comparision.

[Antoninus]

It does not; precisely what I said in my post.

Oops. Apologies. I misread your original post.

I'll say I do know a bit about confession, having been born, baptized, and confirmed in the Catholic Church, and having spent most of my youth in Catholic schools.

With all due respect, that doesn't mean a whole lot anymore, considering the state of youth catechism in the US since the mid-1960s. I grew up much the same as you did, but knew very little about Church history, the sacraments, the saints, etc. until I started doing research on my own--and watching EWTN regularly...

[johnk]

The Word is sharper than a two-edged sword. I guess you felt a little cut?

[Antoninus]

The Word is sharper than a two-edged sword. I guess you felt a little cut?

Not at all. The word as interpreted by a single pathetic Catholic-hater means nothing to me. It's just a lot of "johnk". The Word as explained by the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which was ordained on Earth by Christ himself--now that means something.

[george wythe]

The church suspended Rowell from his duties June 22 and he was fired a week later.

I hope my Church learns about speedy justice. There is no need to wait for a Christian minister to be convicted in a secular court of law.

The Church has enough wise men to decide whether these allegations are true; if the accused man is found guilty by fellow Christian leaders, he should be terminated immediately.

[NJ_gent]

"I've never heard about a circumstance such as you described, only actual sins commited. I spent last summer with two priests who were adamant that they would not could not divulge any information regarding dialogue between themselves and a parisioner. The Navy Chaplain Corps concept of privileged communication is based on the RCC model. You may be right though, I've just never heard that as an exception."

Those types of situations were always the ones explained to us questioning little rascals in Catholic school (in later years, of course). At the time, it was a little difficult to grasp the nuances of the whole thing. Perhaps the clearest example was that of murder. As it was explained to us, if you confessed that you had murdered someone, the priest could do nothing regarding that particular revelation beyond strongly counseling you to confess to authorities. However, if you were to tell a priest (in confession or otherwise) that you were going to murder someone, then the priest must do whatever he can to prevent that from happening. That could include telling the intended target, but would generally involve telling police.

Of course, we had to come up with every possible hypothetical situation to see if we could 'trick' the poor priest into painting himself into a corner. Perhaps my favorite was the ever-popular "can God make a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it?". I'm betting that by now, they must teach that question to all the new priests.

[handy]

This wouldn't happen if they let Baptist youth directors get married.

Not sure where you get this. At least two for sure and perhaps all four of our youth pastors are married. But just because they are married does not mean this wouldn't happen.

Also, a couple of years ago the pastor that ran the recreation ministry was touched by a sermon and admitted he was having an affair (no laws were broken she was an adult also). He was immediately fired that day. The church paid for he & his wife to attend marriage counseling, and they are active members of the church. But he'll never be on a paid church staff again.

[NJ_gent]

"With all due respect, that doesn't mean a whole lot anymore, considering the state of youth catechism in the US since the mid-1960s. I grew up much the same as you did, but knew very little about Church history, the sacraments, the saints, etc. until I started doing research on my own"

My Catholic elementary/middle school hammered home plenty of information about the Catholic Church. Probably about 10% of the 8th grade's school year was devoted to Confirmation (spread out across the school year, of course). Prior to that, the Vatican councils were discussed in depth, the early Church was dealt with heavily, and many of the saints were covered fairly well including projects for each of us involving learning everything about a Patron saint with whom we shared a name. They did all that while keeping us far enough ahead of other schools that much of my first year in a good Catholic high school was review.

I do give credit where credit's due; St Mary's in Landover Hills, MD may have been more about money than education at times, but they did a better job of educating kids than pretty much any other school I've seen. They may be an exception to the rule.

[johnk]

Well that will give you seven more years than "born again" believers to figure it out.

Peter never went to ROME, that was Paul. (The book of ROMANS)

Also God "BUILT" on the ROCK (Jesus), not a sinful man "PETER") - Different GREEK words used.

If you are serious about getting saved read this...

(Mat 16:18) "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

There is a lot of confusion about upon whom the church was built. The traditions of some churches say that Jesus was building his church on Peter, a man. That just is not so.

As fallible as men are, there is no way the church could be built on a man. It must have been built on Jesus Christ. The Greek supports this view.

In the Greek, Peter is "petros." "petros" just means a piece of a rock larger than a pebble or stone, but still a little rock. It is a movable rock. The Greek for "rock" here is "petra", a mass of rock or bedrock. This implies a foundation stone. Peter, the little, moveable rock, is not a foundation stone.

The first use of the rock, Peter, the piece of rock, is not the rock upon which the church is built. The church is built on the second rock, the massive rock, that is to say, Christ, the rock of our salvation, the stone the builders rejected, the chief cornerstone, the foundation stone laid in Zion.

Again, who is the foundation stone? Jesus Christ, the stone the builders rejected and the chief cornerstone (Psa. 118:22, Mat 21:42, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17), the foundation stone (Isa 28:16), and the rock of our salvation (Psa 89:26, Psa 95:1).

Would Jesus build His church on a little piece of a rock or on a solid foundation stone? I think the answer is obvious: The foundation bedrock.

[Antoninus]

I get it. You hate the Catholic Church. You can stop posting to me now.

[nickelspd]

I actually knew this guy, since I live near Kernersville. I think he needs all the prison time he can get, because I know he feels no remorse for what he did. I hope to never see or hear from him again.