A Priest's Story

OpinionJournal ^ | Saturday, April 30, 2005 | Dorothy Rabinowitz

[gbcdoj]

NO CRUELER TYRANNIES

A Priest's Story
Not all accounts of sex abuse in the Catholic Church turn out to be true.

BY DOROTHY RABINOWITZ
Saturday, April 30, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Nine years after he had been convicted and sent to prison on charges of sexual assault against a teenage boy, Father Gordon MacRae received a letter in July 2003 from Nixon Peabody LLP, a law firm representing the Diocese of Manchester, N.H. Under the circumstances--he was a priest serving a life term--and after all he had seen, the cordial-sounding inquiry should not perhaps have chilled him as much as it did.

". . . an individual named Brett McKenzie has brought a claim against the Diocese of Manchester seeking a financial settlement as a result of alleged conduct by you," the letter informed him. There was a limited window of opportunity for an agreement that would release him and the diocese from liability. He should understand, the lawyer added, that this request didn't require Father MacRae to acknowledge in any way what Mr. McKenzie had alleged. "Rather, I simply need to know whether you would object to a settlement agreement."

Father MacRae promptly fired a letter off, through his lawyer, declaring he had no idea who Mr. McKenzie was, had never met him, and he was confounded by the request that he assent to any such payment. Neither he nor his lawyers ever received any response. Father MacRae had little doubt that the stranger--like others who had emerged, long after trial, with allegations and attorneys, and, frequently, just-recovered memories of abuse--got his settlement.

[gbcdoj]

The judge also took it upon himself to instruct jurors to "disregard inconsistencies in Mr. Grover's testimony," and said that they should not think him dishonest because of his failure to answer questions. The jury had much to disregard.

Interesting article that ran on the Journal editorial page on Wednesday and Thursday. Other articles/discussion on the story may be found here and here, and the NH Attorney General's report on the MacRae case here

[bornacatholic]

About his own moral lapses--grave violations of his vows--Gordon MacRae required no clarifications. He was a priest who had failed twice to resist temptation, once, briefly, with a married woman who had declared her love and need for him--a saga with elements of "The Thorn Birds" and, in larger part, farce. There was a one-night encounter, during his leave of absence from the parish, with Tony Bonacci, a highly intelligent 16-year male friend and a dependent of sorts.

*I am fine with Bi-Ritual Priests. However, Bisexual Priests tend to be problematic.

[Diago]

4 later

[billorites]

From the Keene Sentinel, April 30, 2005

Officer defends work on MacRae case

Sentinel staff

Saturday, April 30, 2005

A Keene police officer says he stands by his investigation that led to the conviction of a Catholic priest for child sexual assault in 1994.

Detective James F. McLaughlin, who has built a speciality in probing child abuse cases, says there was adequate evidence to convict Gordon MacRae of raping a 15-year-old boy.

McLaughlin’s investigation, along with other aspects of the case, came under criticism this week in a series of editorial page columns in the Wall Street Journal by Dorothy Rabinowitz, a member of that paper’s editorial board and an accomplished writer about false sex abuse claims.

In her columns, she found fault with the prosecution of the case, which led to MacRae’s sentencing to a minimum 33 years in prison, as well as the judge, the defense counsel, the plaintiffs and the Catholic church, but her main focus was on McLaughlin, as well as what she termed a legal system that opens itself to a “scam” by personal injury lawyers.

In an interview this week, McLaughlin told the Concord Monitor that Rabinowitz “selected bits and pieces (of information) to support her position” that MacRae was wrongly convicted in Cheshire County Superior Court.

He said that Rabinowitz ignored facts in the case, adding, “Ultimately, a jury sat and dealt with live witnesses and testimony and decided differently.”

The Wall Street Journal articles did not introduce any significant new information regarding the case.